Cold Case Christianity A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims Of The Gospels

COLD-CASE
CHRI

STIANIT Y

A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE INVESTIGATES
The CLAIMS OF THE GOSPELS

J.WARNER

WALLACE

foreword by LEE STROBEL

COLD-CASE
CHRISTIANITY

A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE INVESTIGATES
THE CLAIMS OF THE GOSPELS

J.WARNER
WALLACE

foreword by LEE STROBEL

COLD-CASE
CHRISTIANITY

A Se DETECTIVE INVESTIGATES
E CLAIMS OF THE GOSPELS

J.WAR

NER
WALLACE

David@Cook:
transforming lives together

COVER

PREFACE
LEARN TO BE A DETECTIVE

SECTION 1

Chapter 1
Principle #1:
DON’T BE A “KNOW-IT-ALL”

Chapter 2
Principle #2:
LEARN HOW TO “INFER”

Chapter 3
Principle #3:
THINK “CIRCUMSTANTIALLY”

Chapter 4
Principle #4:
TEST YOUR WITNESSES

Chapter 5
Principle #5:
HANG ON EVERY WORD

Chapter 6
Principle #6:
SEPARATE ARTIFACTS FROM EVIDENCE

Chapter 7
Principle #7:
RESIST CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Chapter 8
Principle #8:
RESPECT THE “CHAIN OF CUSTODY”

Contents

Chapter 9
Principle #9:

Chapter 11
WERE THEY PRESENT?

Chapter 12
WERE THEY CORROBORATED?

Chapter 13

WERE THEY ACCURATE?

Chapter 14
WERE THEY BIASED?

Postscript
WITNESSES AND RESOURCES
Compiling the resources necessary to make the case

Case Files
EXPERT WITNESSES

Case Files

Extras

Special Thanks:
My deepest thanks to Sean McDowell for motivating me to write this book
and for being a true brother in the faith, to Craig Hazen for being the most
enthusiastic encourager and connecting me to the people who made the
book a reality, to Lee Strobel for having the heart and desire to support this
work, and to my literary agent, Mark Sweeney, for answering every phone
call and taking a chance with a cold-case detective.
This book is dedicated to my best friend, most trusted partner, and
smartest critic—my wife and inspiration, Susie. Thanks for being the first
person to read every word and for helping me to be the kind of man who

would even dream about writing a book.

Foreword
I loved hanging out with homicide detectives.

I started my journalism career as a general assignment reporter on the
overnight shift at the Chicago Tribune, and that meant covering the frequent
murders committed around the city—crime-syndicate hits, gang-related
violence, domestic disputes gone awry, robberies that got out of hand. Later
I was assigned to the criminal courts, where I reported on the major
homicide trials from around Cook County.

All of which meant that I spent a lot of time interviewing and socializing
with homicide detectives. I liked them because they were no-nonsense, get-
to-the-point people, with an uncanny ability to cut through the fog of
deception that defendants used to cover their tracks. These street-toughened
investigators were seldom fooled by a phony alibi or a flimsy excuse as
they systematically unraveled the mysteries that confounded everyone else.
They were evidence driven—“just the facts, ma’am,” as the old Jack Webb
character in Dragnet used to say—and so was I, constantly checking and
rechecking my information before publishing my reports for the city to see.

Back then, I was an atheist. I thought that faith in God was based on
conjecture, wishful thinking, and emotions; in fact, the idea that there might
be evidence supporting the existence of God was totally alien to me. And I
wasn’t alone.

J. Warner Wallace is a cold-case homicide investigator who also started
out as an outspoken spiritual skeptic. He began with the assumption that the
supernatural was impossible. Yet when he diligently applied his skills as a
detective—allowing the evidence to take him wherever it would lead—he

came to a far different conclusion. Assessing the evidence with razor-like

precision, he solved the most important mystery of all time—whether Jesus
of Nazareth is the unique Son of God.

In his savvy and captivating book, Jim will introduce you to the kinds of
tools and techniques that he routinely uses to crack unsolved murders that
have long baffled other cops. He will show you how this same analytical
thinking can be used to crack the case of a long-ago killing on a cross—and
the incredible resurrection that followed. It’s a fascinating process, with Jim
drawing on his quarter century of police experience to explain how and why
the evidence of history decisively tips the scales in favor of Christianity.

If you’re a spiritual skeptic like Jim and I were for many years, then
you’ll find this investigative adventure to be an irresistible, eye-opening,
and potentially life-changing journey, full of helpful insights and wisdom.
Like a good cop, I hope you’ll pursue the evidence to the conclusion it
ultimately supports. That verdict, in the end, will be yours to reach.

If you’re a follower of Jesus, then Jim’s account will not only bolster
your own faith, but also sharpen your skills in explaining to others why so
many incisive thinkers throughout history have concluded that Christianity
is uniquely credible and trustworthy.

Undoubtedly, you’ve seen media stories that have traced how cold-case
detectives have pieced together an evidential puzzle in order to solve the
most perplexing of homicides. Perhaps one of those accounts was based on
a case that Jim actually helped crack. But as important as these
investigations are, none of them approach the significance of the case that
this book tackles.

So get ready to shadow Jim as he probes the evidence for faith. You’ll
find his approach to be compelling, his logic to be sound, and his

conclusions to be amply supported. Unravel with him the historical case for

Jesus—and discover its eternal implications for you and all the people you

know.

Lee Strobel
www.LeeStrobel.com
author of The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith

Preface
THE DETECTIVE WAY

I got the call at about 1:00 a.m. Detectives who are assigned to the
homicide unit also investigate officer-involved shootings (OISs), and all of
us on the OIS team were called out for this one. When I arrived at the
scene, Officer Mark Walker was standing by his patrol car, talking with a
sergeant, and waiting for our arrival. I shook his hand, made sure he was
ready to talk about the shooting, and began to walk through the events that
precipitated our “callout.”

Mark told me that he was working patrol when he saw a man driving
down the street, swerving from lane to lane as though he was drunk. He
pulled the driver over and approached his car. When he leaned in to talk to
the man, he could smell the alcohol on his breath. Mark asked the man to
step out from the car, and the driver reluctantly complied. As the man stood
outside his car, Mark could see that he was angry and defiant. Mark decided
to conduct a quick “pat-down” search to make sure the irritated driver
wasn’t carrying any weapons. Mark had no idea that the driver was Jacob
Stevens, a parolee with a long arrest record in an adjacent city. Jacob had
just been released from state prison. He was on parole for an assault charge,
and tonight he was carrying a loaded Colt .45-caliber pistol hidden in his
waistband. Jacob knew that he would go back to jail if the gun was
discovered, and he was determined to stay out of jail.

When Mark asked Jacob Stevens to turn around so he could conduct the
pat-down search, Jacob turned away for a moment, pulled his gun, and then

turned back toward Mark, pointing the gun at Mark’s chest.

“I knew that he had the drop on me,” Mark told me as he recalled the
events. “His gun was already drawn and pointed at me before I could even
get my hand on mine.”

Jacob had no intention of discussing the situation with Mark. He’d
already decided that he wasn’t going back to jail, even if it meant killing
this police officer. Jacob pointed his gun at Mark and started to squeeze the
trigger. Mark was about to enter the fight of his life, and he was starting off
with a distinct disadvantage; he was already seconds behind his opponent.

All of us who work in law enforcement understand the importance of
wearing our bulletproof vests. When we first became officers, we were
trained with these vests, and at some point most of us were shown how the
vests performed in live-fire tests. We knew that they could stop a bullet,
including a .45 round. On this night, Mark was going to put his vest to the
test.

“IT just tensed my stomach muscles and prepared to take the shot as I
pulled my gun out of the holster. I knew he was going to get the first round
off.”

While Mark knew that his vest could sustain the impact of a .45-caliber
round, tonight he trusted in the vest for the very first time. In that singular
moment, Mark went from “belief that” to “belief in.” It’s one thing to
believe that the vest can save a life; it’s another thing to trust it to save your
own life. Mark obviously survived the shooting and lived to describe it for
us. The lesson I learned from Mark, however, had far more impact on my

life than he would ever know.

FROM “BELIEF THAT” TO “BELIEF IN”

I was thirty-five years old before I first paid attention to a pastor’s sermon.

A fellow officer had been inviting me to church for many months, and

while I was able to put him off for some time, I eventually acquiesced and
attended a Sunday-morning service with my family. I managed to ignore
most of what the pastor talked about until he began to paint a picture of
Jesus that caught my attention. He characterized Jesus as a really smart guy
who had some remarkably wise things to say about life, family,
relationships, and work. I began to believe that this might be true. While I
was uninterested in bowing my knee to Jesus as God, I was at least willing
to listen to Jesus as a teacher. A week later I purchased my first Bible.

My friends knew me as an angry atheist, a skeptic who thoughtfully
dissected Christians and the Christian worldview, yet I suddenly found
myself reading the Gospels to hear what Jesus had to say. Something about
the Gospels caught my attention, more as an investigator than as someone
interested in the ancient philosophy of an imaginary sage. By this time in
my life, I had already served as a patrol officer and a member of the Gang
Detail, the Metro Team (investigating street narcotics), the SWAT Team,
and the Crime Impact Team (investigating career criminals). I had
interviewed hundreds (if not thousands) of eyewitnesses and suspects. I had
become familiar with the nature of eyewitness statements, and I understood
how testimony was evaluated in a court of law. Something about the
Gospels struck me as more than mythological storytelling. The Gospels
actually appeared to be ancient eyewitness accounts.

I conducted so many interviews and had such success getting suspects to
“cop-out” that my department sent me to a number of investigative schools
to refine my skills; I was eventually trained in Forensic Statement Analysis
(FSA). By carefully employing this methodology and scrutinizing a
suspect’s choice of pronouns, use of tensed language, compression or

expansion of time (along with many other linguistic tendencies), I was

typically able to determine if he or she committed the crime, and I could
often establish the time of day when the crime actually occurred! If this
technique could provide me with such incredible insight into the statements
of suspects and witnesses, why couldn’t it be used to investigate the claims
of the Gospels? I began to use FSA as I studied the gospel of Mark. Within
a month, and in spite of my deep skepticism and hesitation, I concluded that
Mark’s gospel was the eyewitness account of the apostle Peter. I was
beginning to move from a belief that Jesus was a wise teacher to a belief in
what He said about Himself. I began a journey from casual assent to
committed trust, from belief that to belief in.

In my current assignment, I investigate cold-case murders. Unlike other
lesser crimes, an unsolved homicide is never closed; time doesn’t run out
on a murder investigation. My particular agency has dozens of unsolved
murders that remain open, waiting for someone to take the time to
reexamine them. There are many similarities between investigating cold
cases and investigating the claims of Christianity. Cold-case homicides are
events from the distant past for which there is often little or no forensic
evidence. These kinds of cases are sometimes solved on the basis of
eyewitness testimony, even though many years have passed between the
point of the crime and the point of the investigation. While there may not be
any surviving eyewitnesses to the actual murder, there are often witnesses
available who can help puzzle together the events leading up to the crime or
the behavior of a suspect following the crime. These witnesses can be
evaluated in a number of ways to confirm their reliability. In the end, a
strong “circumstantial” case can usually be made by collecting witness
statements and verifying these observations with what little forensic

evidence is available. By taking this approach, I have arrested and

successfully prosecuted a number of cold-case suspects who thought they
had gotten away with murder.

Christianity makes a claim about an event from the distant past for which
there is little or no forensic evidence. Like cold cases, the truth about what
happened can be discovered by examining the statements of eyewitnesses
and comparing them with what little additional evidence is accessible to us.
If the eyewitnesses can be evaluated (and their statements can be verified
by what we have available), an equally strong circumstantial case can be
made for the claims of the New Testament. But are there any reliable
eyewitness statements in existence to corroborate in the first place? This
became the most important question I had to answer in my personal
investigation of Christianity. Were the gospel narratives eyewitness
accounts, or were they only moralistic mythologies? Were the Gospels
reliable, or were they filled with untrustworthy, supernatural absurdities?
The most important questions I could ask about Christianity just so
happened to fall within my area of expertise.

I hope to share some of that expertise with you in this book. Somewhere
on my journey from “belief that” to “belief in,” a friend told me about C. S.
Lewis. After reading Mere Christianity, I purchased everything Lewis had
written. One quote from God in the Dock stuck with me through the years.
Lewis correctly noted, “Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no

importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be

is moderately important.ӣ Christianity, if it is true, is worthy of our
investigation. Over the years I’ve retained my skepticism and my desperate
need to examine the facts, even as I’ve journeyed from “belief that” to
“belief in.” I am still a detective, after all. I think I’ve learned a few things

that may help you investigate the truth claims of the Bible.

I will tell you up front that I am going to provide you with a number of
examples from my career as a homicide and cold-case detective as I share
what I’ve learned over the years; I will be telling some cop stories. I’ve
carefully edited these examples, however, changing the names of those who
were involved and modifying the details of each case slightly to protect the
officers and victims. I’ve had the privilege of working some of the most
important and well-publicized cases our city has encountered in the past
twenty years. While I want you to learn from what we did right and what
we did wrong, I want to respect the privacy of the detectives (and victims’
families) along the way.

If you’re a skeptic who rejects the Bible like I did, my experiences and
insights might help you assess the gospel writers in a new light. If you’re
someone who has encountered Christians who were unprepared to defend
what they believe, I’d like to encourage you to be patient with us because
the Christian tradition is actually intellectually robust and satisfying, even if
we believers are occasionally unable to respond to your challenges. The
answers are available; you don’t have to turn off your brain to be a believer.
Yes, it is possible to become a Christian because of the evidence rather than
in spite of the evidence. Many of us have done just that.

If you’re already a believer, my experiences might provide you with a
few tools that can help you defend your faith in a more vigorous and
informed way. You may learn something new about the history of
Christianity or the nature and power of evidence. I want to encourage you
to become an informed Christian, to worship God with your mind, and to
prepare yourself as a Christian case maker. Let’s start by examining ten
simple principles of evidence that may change the way you look at

Christianity forever.

CASE NOTES

Detectives become copious note takers, collecting information and
documenting their progress along the way. The notes at the end of each

chapter refer to materials cited in our discussions of the evidence.

1. C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1970), 101.

Section 1
Learn to Be a Detective

Ten important principles every aspiring detective needs to master

Chapter 1\ 39
Principle #1:

DON’T BE A “*KNOW-IT-ALL”

“Jeffries and Wallace,” Alan barked impatiently as the young officer
scrambled to write our names on the crime-scene entry log. Alan lifted the
yellow tape and passed beneath it, crouching painfully from the stress he
had to place on his bad knee. “I’m getting too old for this,” he said as he
unbuttoned the coat of his suit. “The middle of the night gets later every
time they call us out.”

This was my first homicide scene, and I didn’t want to make a fool of
myself. I had been working robberies for many years, but I had never been
involved in a suspicious death investigation before. I was worried that my
movements in the crime scene might contaminate it in some way. I took
small, measured steps and followed Detective Alan Jeffries around like a
puppy. Alan had been working in this detail for over fifteen years; he was
only a few years short of retirement. He was knowledgeable, opinionated,
confident, and grumpy. I liked him a lot.

We stood there for a moment and looked at the victim’s body. She was
lying partially naked on her bed, strangled. There was no sign of a struggle
and no sign of forced entry into her condominium, just a forty-six-year-old
woman lying dead in a very unflattering position. My mind was racing as I
tried to recall everything I had learned in the two-week homicide school I

recently attended. I knew there were important pieces of evidence that

needed to be preserved and collected. My mind struggled to assess the
quantity of “data” that presented itself at the scene. What was the
relationship between the evidence and the killer? Could the scene be
reconstructed to reveal his or her identity?

“Hey, wake up!” Alan’s tone shattered my thoughts. “We got a killer to
catch here. Go find me her husband; he’s the guy we’re lookin’ for.”

What? Alan already had this figured out? He stood there, looking at me
with a sense of impatience and disdain. He pointed to a framed picture
toppled over on the nightstand. Our victim was in the loving embrace of a
man who appeared to be her age. He then pointed to some men’s clothing
hanging in the right side of her closet. Several items appeared to be missing.

“T’ve been doing this for a long time, kid,” Alan said as he opened his
notebook. “‘Stranger’ murders are pretty rare. That guy’s probably her
husband, and in my experience, spouses kill each other.” Alan
systematically pointed to a number of pieces of evidence and interpreted
them in light of his proclamation. There was no forced entry; the victim
didn’t appear to have put up much of a fight; the picture had been knocked
over on the nightstand; men’s clothing appeared to be missing from the
closet—Alan saw all of this as confirmation of his theory. “No reason to
make it complicated, newbie; most of the time it’s real simple. Find me the
husband, and I’ll show you the killer.”

As it turned out, it was a little more difficult than that. We didn’t identify
the suspect for another three months, and it turned out to be the victim’s
twenty-five-year-old neighbor. He barely knew her but managed to trick the
victim into opening her door on the night he raped and killed her. She
turned out to be single; the man in the photograph was her brother (he

visited occasionally from overseas and kept some of his clothing in her

closet). All of Alan’s presuppositions were wrong, and his assumptions
colored the way we were seeing the evidence. Alan’s philosophy was
hurting his methodology. We weren’t following the evidence to see where it
led; we had already decided where the evidence would lead and were
simply looking for affirmation. Luckily, the truth prevailed.

All of us hold presuppositions that can impact the way we see the world
around us. I’ve learned to do my best to enter every investigation with my
eyes and mind open to all the reasonable possibilities. I try not to bite on
any particular philosophy or theory until one emerges as the most rational,
given the evidence. I’ve learned this the hard way; I’ve made more than my
share of mistakes. There’s one thing I know for sure (having worked both
fresh and cold homicides): you simply cannot enter into an investigation
with a philosophy that dictates the outcome. Objectivity is paramount; this
is the first principle of detective work that each of us must learn. It sounds
simple, but our presuppositions are sometimes hidden in a way that makes

them hard to uncover and recognize.

SPIRITUAL PRESUPPOSITIONS
When I was an atheist, I held many presuppositions that tainted the way I
investigated the claims of Christianity. I was raised in the Star Trek
generation (the original cast, mind you) by an atheist father who was a cop
and detective for nearly thirty years before I got hired as a police officer. I
was convinced by the growing secular culture that all of life’s mysteries
would eventually be explained by science, and I was committed to the
notion that we would ultimately find a natural answer for everything we
once thought to be supernatural.

My early years as a homicide detective only amplified these

presuppositions. After all, what would my partners think if I examined all

the evidence in a difficult case and (after failing to identify a suspect)
concluded that a ghost or demon committed the murder? They would surely
think I was crazy. All homicide investigators presume that supernatural
beings are not reasonable suspects, and many detectives also happen to
reject the supernatural altogether. Detectives have to work in the real world,
the “natural world” of material cause and effect. We presuppose a particular
philosophy as we begin to investigate our cases. This philosophy is called
“philosophical naturalism” (or “philosophical materialism”).

Most of us in the Star Trek generation
~) Philosophical understand this philosophy, even if we
Naturalism can’t articulate it perfectly. Philosophical

The presuppositional belief that only Naturalism rejects the existence of

natural laws and forces (as opposed
to supernatural forces) operate in
the world. Philosophical naturalists realities. It begins with the foundational
believe that nothing exists beyond
the natural realm.

supernatural agents, powers, beings, or

premise that natural laws and forces
alone can account for every phenomenon
under examination. If there is an answer to be discovered, philosophical
naturalism dictates that we must find it by examining the relationship
between material objects and natural forces; that’s it, nothing more.
Supernatural forces are excluded by definition. Most scientists begin with
this presupposition and fail to consider any answer that is not strictly
physical, material, or natural. Even when a particular phenomenon cannot
be explained by any natural, material process or set of forces, the vast
majority of scientists will refuse to consider a supernatural explanation.
Richard Lewontin (an evolutionary biologist and geneticist) once famously

wrote a review of a book written by Carl Sagan and admitted that science is

skewed to ignore any supernatural explanation, even when the evidence

might indicate that natural, material explanations are lacking.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our
a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how

mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an

absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Scientists aren’t alone; many historians are also committed to a
naturalistic presupposition. The majority of historical scholars, for example,
accept the historicity of the New Testament Gospels, in so far as they
describe the life and teaching of Jesus and the condition of the first-century
environment in which Jesus lived and ministered. But many of these same
historians simultaneously reject the historicity of any of the miracles
described in the New Testament, in spite of the fact that these miracles are
described alongside the events that scholars accept as historical. Why do
they accept some events and reject others? Because they have a

presuppositional bias against the supernatural.

Bart Ehrman (the famous agnostic professor of religious studies at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) was once in a radio debate

with Michael Licona (research professor of New Testament at Southern

Evangelical Seminary) on the British radio program Unbelievable 23 While
debating the evidence for the resurrection, Ehrman revealed a naturalistic
presupposition that is common to many historians. He said, “The bottom
line I think is one we haven’t even talked about, which is whether there can
be such a thing as historical evidence for a miracle, and, I think, the answer
is a Clear ‘no,’ and I think virtually all historians agree with me on that.”
Ehrman rejects the idea that any historical evidence could demonstrate a
miracle because, in his words, “it’s invoking something outside of our
natural experience to explain what happened in the past.” It shouldn’t
surprise us that Ehrman rejects the resurrection given this presupposition;
he arrived at a particular natural conclusion because he would not allow
himself any other option, even though the evidence might be better

explained by the very thing he rejects.

MENTAL ROADBLOCKS

I began to understand the hazard of philosophical presuppositions while
working as a homicide detective. Alan and I stood at that crime scene,
doing our best to answer the question “Who murdered this woman?” One of
us already had an answer. Spouses or lovers typically commit murders like
this; case closed. We simply needed to find this woman’s husband or lover.
It was as if we were asking the question “Did her husband kill her?” after
first excluding any suspect other than her husband. It’s not surprising that
Alan came to his conclusion; he started with it as his premise.
When I was an atheist, I did the very
Begging the Question same thing. I stood in front of the

When we_ smuggle our
conclusions into our
" investigation by beginning
with them as an initial premise, we
are likely to beg the question and
end up with conclusions that match
Our presuppositions rather than
reflect the truth of the matter.

interested in
God

exist?” But I began the investigation as a

God,

answering the question

evidence for

“Does

naturalist with the presupposition that

nothing exists beyond natural laws,

forces, and material objects. I was
asking the question “Does a supernatural being exist?” after first excluding
the possibility of anything supernatural. Like Alan, I came to a particular
conclusion because I started with it as my premise. This is the truest

definition of bias, isn’t it? Starting off with your mind already made up.

ENTER WITH EMPTY HANDS

Christians are often accused of being “biased” simply because they believe
in the supernatural. This accusation has power in our current pluralistic
culture. Biased people are seen as prejudicial and unfair, arrogant and
overly confident of their position. Nobody wants to be identified as
someone who is biased or opinionated. But make no mistake about it, all of
us have a point of view; all of us hold opinions and ideas that color the way
we see the world. Anyone who tells you that he (or she) is completely
objective and devoid of presuppositions has another more important
problem: that person is either astonishingly naive or a liar.

The question is not whether or not we have ideas, opinions, or preexisting
points of view; the question is whether or not we will allow these
perspectives to prevent us from examining the evidence objectively. It’s
possible to have a prior opinion yet leave this presupposition at the door in
order to examine the evidence fairly. We ask jurors to do this all the time. In
the state of California, jurors are repeatedly instructed to “keep an open

mind throughout the trial” and not to “let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or

public opinion influence your decision.”4 The courts assume that people
have biases, hold sympathies and prejudices, and are aware of public
opinion. In spite of this, jurors are required to “keep an open mind.” Jurors
have to enter the courtroom with empty hands; they must leave all their
baggage in the hall. Everyone begins with a collection of biases. We must
(to the best of our ability) resist the temptation to allow our biases to
eliminate certain forms of evidence (and therefore certain conclusions)

before we even begin the investigation.

If it can't be
tested with my
five senses it

People of my race

People with
beady eyes are
suspicious

Nothing
exists outside the
natural realm

Y* Police officers
# are liars and are
untrustworthy

Y’ Supernatural
explanations must

eo be eliminated

Dangerous Presuppositions Dangerous Presuppositions
for Jurors for Truth Seekers

As a skeptic, I was slow to accept even the slightest possibility that
miracles were possible. My commitment to naturalism prevented me from
considering such nonsense. But after my experience with presuppositions at
the crime scene, I decided that I needed to be fair with my naturalistic
inclinations. I couldn’t begin with my conclusion, and if the evidence
pointed to the reasonable existence of God, this certainly opened up the
possibility of the miraculous. If God did exist, He was the creator of
everything we see in the universe. He, therefore, created matter from

nonmatter, life from nonlife; He created all time and space. God’s creation

of the universe would certainly be nothing short of ... miraculous. If there
was a God who could account for the beginning of the universe, lesser
miracles (say, walking on water or healing the blind) might not even be all
that impressive. If I was going to learn the truth about the existence of a
miraculous God, I needed to at least lay down my presuppositions about the
miraculous. My experience at crime scenes has helped me to do just that.
This doesn’t mean that I now rush to supernatural explanations every time I
fail to find an easy or quick natural explanation. It simply means that I am
open to following the evidence wherever it leads, even if it points to the

existence of a miraculous designer.

=, A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
J =| CHECKLIST

I keep a leather bag packed beside my bed. It contains all the gear I need
when I’m called to a homicide scene in the middle of the night. My callout
bag typically includes a flashlight, blank notepads, plastic gloves, a digital
recorder, camera, and (of course) my gun and badge. My bag also contains
an investigative checklist I created many years ago when I was a new
detective. While I seldom need to refer to it anymore, it represents years of
wisdom gleaned from partners, classes, training seminars, successful
investigations, and failed efforts. You might be interested in assembling
your own callout bag and checklist. If so, you may want to include this first
principle related to presuppositions; it will serve you well as you investigate
the Gospels.

When I was an atheist, I allowed the presupposition of naturalism to
unfairly taint the way I looked at the evidence for God’s existence. I failed

to differentiate between science (the systematic, rational examination of

phenomena) and scientism (the refusal to consider anything other than
natural causes). I was thirty-five before I recognized how unreasonable it
was for me to reject the possibility of anything supernatural before I even
began to investigate the supernatural claims of Christianity. In those days,
when I encountered phenomena that could not be explained naturally, |
simply dug in and continued to reject the possibility that something
extranatural might be operating. I refused to begin the journey with empty
hands or an open mind.

Even though I’m a Christian today, I understand that much of the
phenomena we observe can be explained satisfactorily by simple
relationships between matter and the laws of nature. For this reason, I try to
be careful not to jump to supernatural explanations when natural causes are
supported evidentially. Not all of God’s activity is overtly miraculous. God
is still at work even in the interaction between the matter He created and the
natural laws that reflect His nature (this is, in fact, miraculous enough). As
a result, I try to encourage my skeptical friends to reexamine their natural
presuppositions, but I’m careful to respect the claims of naturalists when

they are evidentially supported.

CASE NOTES

2. Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,’

5)

review of The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31.

3. Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona, “Biblical Evidence for the Resurrection” debate hosted by Justin
Brierly, Unbelievable? radio program, April 16, 2011, accessed April 17, 2012,
38C0210FD9FD}.

4. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions,
LexisNexis Matthew Bender (official publisher of the Judicial Council Jury Instructions), CalCrim

Section 101, accessed April 17, 2012, www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim juryins.pdf.

Chapter 2\
Principle #2:

LEARN HOW TO *INFER”

“T hate these kinds of cases,” Mark muttered as he carefully pulled back the

sheet on the bed. Detective Mark Richardson had a child of his own about

the same age as the victim. Nothing is more disturbing than the homicide of

a small infant, and it was Mark’s turn to handle this murder. Three of us

stood there and examined the scene while we waited for the coroner’s

investigator to arrive. Two of us were glad it wasn’t our turn.

“ Cold-Case
' Homicides

While most felonious — crime
investigations are limited by a
statute of limitations (a legislated
period of time, beyond which the
case cannot be legally prosecuted),
homicides have no such restriction.
This means that fresh homicides,
should they go unsolved, can be
investigated many years after they
were committed. Investigators who
have experience with cold cases
can sometimes recognize the
investigative pitfalls that cause
cases to go cold in the first place.

“How do parents do this kind of thing
to their own kids?” Mark posed the
question rhetorically, as if he didn’t
know the kind of response he was going
to get from our senior partner.

“Don’t call this dirtbag a ‘parent,’” Al
responded, casting a look of disgust in
the direction of the disheveled parolee
sitting on the couch down the hall. “If he
did this, he’s nothing more than the
sperm donor for this kid.”

I often get called out to assist

members of our homicide unit at

suspicious death scenes such as these when the manner of death is not

immediately obvious. Better safe than sorry; these scenes have to be
worked as homicides (until we determine otherwise), or they may become
cold cases that I will eventually have to add to my list. The situation
surrounding this death was suspicious, so I got called to lend a hand. The
baby appeared to have asphyxiated as he was lying in his father’s bed, just
feet away from an unused crib located in the same room. Mom and dad had
recently separated, and the baby’s father had a history of violence against
his wife going back several years. The baby’s mother was no longer living
at the house, and she often worried about the safety of her child. Her
husband refused to release the baby to her, and she was afraid to seek legal
help to retrieve the infant, based on her husband’s violent nature. To make
matters worse, her husband made several threats about strangling the boy in
an effort to terrorize her.

We observed that the house was generally filthy and unkempt, and there
were signs of drug use in the living room. When we first contacted the
victim’s father, he seemed nonresponsive and hostile. He initially refused to
answer simple questions and displayed a general distrust of law
enforcement personnel. He was a parolee with a history of drug use,
domestic violence, and felonious behavior. At first glance, one might
suspect that this man was capable of doing the unthinkable.

We called the coroner as we began to collect evidence and photograph
everything in sight, and we didn’t touch the body until the coroner’s
investigator arrived. Only then were we able to get a clear picture of the
baby’s condition. As we removed the bedding around the body and
examined the child more closely, we discovered that he was surprisingly
clean and tidy. He looked healthy and well fed. He was lying next to a

bottle of fresh formula, cleanly dressed in a new diaper and pajama suit. His

hair was washed, and he was lying next to a long pillow that had been
propped up against one side of his torso. A second long pillow appeared to
have been propped against the other side of the baby, but this pillow was
now lying on the floor. The baby was lying, facedown, on the bed, a short
distance from the first pillow. There were no signs of neglect or abuse on
the child, not a single bruise or suspicious mark.

In our follow-up interview of the baby’s father, Al came to learn that the
child was his greatest treasure. In spite of his many admitted failures and
his emotionless, hardened exterior, the man’s one joy was the baby. He
carefully slept with the infant every night and was so concerned about
sudden infant death syndrome that he placed the child, faceup, between two
large pillows next to him on the bed so he could monitor his breathing. On
this particular night, one of the two pillows rolled off the bed, and the baby
managed to roll over on his stomach. Given everything we saw at the scene
and the condition of the baby, we ruled his asphyxiation an accidental

death. Al agreed that this was not a homicide.

THINKING LIKE A DETECTIVE

As investigators, we just employed a

|nferences and methodology known as _ abductive
Reasonable reasoning (also known as “inferring to
Inferences the most reasonable explanation”) in

To infer means “to gather in.” In Order to determine what we had at this
logic, inference refers to the process
of collecting data from numerous
sources, and then drawing data and made a mental list of the raw
conclusions on the basis of this :

evidence. In legal terms, an facts. We then developed a list of the
inference is a “deduction of fact that
may logically and reasonably be
drawn from another fact or group of for the scene in general. Finally, we

scene. We collected all the evidential

possible explanations that might account

facts found or otherwise
established” (Cal Evid Code § 600
[b]). explanations and determined which

In addition, courts across the land
instruct jurors to draw “reasonable
inferences.” These are described as reasonable inference in light of the
“conclusions which are regarded as

compared the evidence to the potential

explanation was, in fact, the most

logical by reasonable people in the evidence.

light of their experience in life.” As it turns out, detectives aren’t the
Lannon v. Hogan, 719 F.2d 518, ;
521, (1st Cir. Mass. 1983). only people who use _ abductive

reasoning in an effort to figure out what
really happened. Historians, scientists, and all the rest of us (regardless of
vocation or avocation) have experience as detectives. In fact, most of us
have become accomplished investigators as a matter of necessity and
practice, and we’ve been employing abductive reasoning without giving it
much thought. I had a partner once who gave me a bit of parental advice.
Dave was a few years older than I was, and he had been working patrol for
many years. He was a seasoned and salty officer, streetwise, cynical, and
infinitely practical. He had two children who were already married when
mine were still in high school. He was full of sage advice (along with some
other stuff).

“Jim, let me tell ya something about kids. I love my two boys. I
remember when they were in high school and used to go out with their
friends on the weekends. I would stay up late and wait for them to come
home. As soon as they walked in the door, I would get up off the couch and
give them a big hug.”

This struck me as a bit odd, given what I knew about Dave. He seldom
exposed a Sensitive side. “Wow, Dave, I have to tell you that I don’t usually

think of you as a touchy-feely kind of guy.”

“T’m not, you moron,” Dave said, returning to form. “I hug them as

tightly as possible so I can get close enough to smell them. I’m not a fool. I

can tell if they’ve been smoking dope or drinking within seconds.”

You see, Dave was an evidentialist, and he applied his reasoning skills to

his experience as a parent. The smell of alcohol or marijuana would serve

as evidence that he would later take into consideration as he was evaluating

the possible activities of his children. Dave was thinking abductively. I bet

you’ve done something similar in your role as a parent, a spouse, a son, or a

daughter.

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN POSS/BLE

AND REASONABLE

g Speculation

Speculation is dangerously
nonevidential by its very definition:

“Reasoning based on inconclusive
evidence; conjecture or supposition”
(The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language, Fourth
Edition, 2003).

“A hypothesis that has been formed
by speculating or conjecturing,
usually with little hard evidence”
(Collins Thesaurus of the English

Language—Complete and
Unabridged 2nd_ Edition, 1995,
2002).

All of us have learned the intuitive

difference between possible and
reasonable. When it comes right down
to it, just about anything is possible. You
may not even be reading this book right
now, even though you think that you are.
It’s possible that aliens covertly
kidnapped you last night and have
induced a_ dreamlike, out-of-body,
extraterrestrial hallucination. While you
think this experience of reading is real,

you may actually wake up tomorrow

morning to discover yourself in an alien spaceship. But let’s face it, that’s

not reasonable, is it?

While it’s interesting to imagine the possibilities, it’s important to return

eventually to what’s reasonable, especially when the truth is at stake. That’s

why judges across the land carefully instruct juries to refrain from what is
known as “speculation” when considering the explanations for what has

occurred in a case. Jurors are told that they “must use only the evidence that

is presented”2 during the trial. They are told to resist the temptation to
consider the attorney’s opinions about unsupported possibilities and to
ignore unsupported speculation wherever they may hear it.

We also tell jurors to resist the impulse to stray from the evidence offered
and ask questions like “What if ...?” or “Isn’t it possible that ...2?” when
these questions are driven by evidentially unsupported speculation. They
must instead limit themselves to what’s reasonable in light of the evidence
that has been presented to them.

In the end, our criminal courts place a high standard on reasonableness,
and that’s important as we think about the process of abductive reasoning.
This rational approach to determining truth will help us come to the most
reasonable conclusion in light of the evidence. It can be applied to more
than criminal cases; we can apply the process of abduction to our spiritual
investigations as well. But first, let’s examine the concept with a real-life

example from the world of homicide investigations.

ABDUCTIVE REASONING AND DEAD GUYS

Let’s use the example of another death scene to fully illustrate the process.
You and I have been called out to “dead-body scene”—a location where a
deceased person has been discovered and the circumstances seem rather
suspicious. While scenes like this are sometimes homicides, they are often
less sinister; there are a few other explanations. Deaths fall into one of four
categories: natural deaths, accidental deaths, suicides, or homicides. It’s our
job to figure out which of the four explanations is the most reasonable in

the following scenario.

We have been called to the scene of a DBR (a “Dead Body Report”) to
assist patrol officers who have already arrived and secured the location.
Here are the facts we are given when we enter the room: A young man was
discovered on the floor of his apartment when his roommate returned from
work. The man was lying facedown. The man was cold to the touch,
nonresponsive, and stiff. Okay, given these minimal facts, it is clear that we
actually do have a dead guy, but which of the four potential explanations is
most reasonable given the facts? Is this death a natural death, an accident, a

suicide, or a homicide?

Dead Man
Lying Facedown

Accidental “dean |
= Fea te iol

<== Suicide =f
moe eer ee

[i
=
: 3
ia}

>

Given the minimal facts so far, all four of the potential explanations are
still in play, aren’t they? Unless we have something more to add
evidentially, it will be difficult to decide if this case should be worked as a

homicide or simply documented as something other than criminal.

Dead Man

pis Facedown
00

of Blood

Let’s change the scenario slightly and add a new piece of evidence to see
if it will help. Imagine that we entered the room and observed that the man
was lying in a pool of his own blood and that this blood seemed to be
coming from the area of his abdomen (under his body). These are the new
minimal facts: (1) a man is dead, (2) lying facedown on the floor, (3) in a
pool of blood that seems to be coming from the front of the man’s lower
abdomen. Given this new set of facts, is there any direction our
investigation might take? Are any of our four explanations more or less
reasonable?

Given the new evidence, we may be comfortable in removing the natural
death explanation from our consideration. After all, what kind of natural
event in the human body would cause someone to bleed from his lower
abdomen? Without an orifice from which to bleed naturally, this does seem
to be an unfounded conclusion to draw; a natural death might be possible,
but it isn’t reasonable.

What about the other three explanations? Could this still be an accidental

death? Sure, the man could have tripped and fallen on something (we

wouldn’t know this until we turned him over). What about a suicide or a
homicide? It seems that these three remaining explanations are still
reasonable in light of what limited evidence we have about this case. Until
we learn a bit more, it will be difficult to decide which of these final three
options is the most reasonable.

Let’s add a new dimension to the case. Imagine that we enter the room
and see the man lying on the floor in a pool of his own blood, but now we
observe a large knife stuck in his lower back. This presents us with a new
set of facts: (1) the man is dead, (2) lying facedown on the floor, (3) in a

pool of blood, and (4) there is a knife stuck in the man’s lower back.

Dead Man
Lying Facedown
al of Blood
Knife in Back

The presence of a knife in the victim’s back seems to eliminate as
unreasonable the conclusion that he died accidentally. It’s hard to imagine
an accident that would account for this fact; an accidental death might be
possible, but it’s not reasonable. If nothing else, the presence of the knife
most certainly affirms the unreasonable nature of a natural death, doesn’t it?
The most reasonable remaining explanations are either suicide or homicide,

and suicide seems less and less likely, given the fact that the victim’s wound

is located on his back. But since the wound is located in the lower portion
of his back (within his reach), let’s leave this option on the table for now.

Imagine, however, that a new fact has entered into our scenario. Imagine
that we discover three extra wounds on the victim’s upper back, in addition
to the one we observed earlier. Our fact list now includes (1) a man who is
dead, (2) lying facedown on the floor, (3) in a pool of blood, (4) with
multiple knife wounds on his back. Our reasonable explanations are
dwindling, aren’t they?

In this situation, natural death, accidental death, and suicide seem out of
the question. While someone may argue that they are still possible, few
would recognize them as reasonable. The most reasonable conclusion in
light of the evidence is simply that this man was murdered. As responsible
detectives, you and I would have no choice but to initiate a homicide
investigation.

Dead Man
Facedown
fi at of Blood

Knife in Back
Multiple Stab Wounds

MAKING MORE DIFFICULT DISTINCTIONS

We just used abductive reasoning to determine which explanation most

reasonably explained what happened at this scene. It was simple, right? But

what if the scenario is more ambiguous than our dead-body scene? What if
two competing explanations seem similarly reasonable? Are there any rules
or principles that might help us distinguish between the most reasonable
explanation and a close contender? Well, over the years, I’ve given this a lot
of thought as I’ve investigated potential homicide suspects in cold-case
murders. When considering two or more closely competing explanations for
a particular event (or suspects in a murder), I now assess the following
factors (keep in mind that these terms are mine and may not reflect the
language of other philosophers or thinkers in the area of abductive

reasoning):

THE TRUTH MUST BE FEASIBLE

(The explanation has explanatory viability)

Before I even begin to think about the evidence related to a particular
murder suspect, I need to make sure that he or she was available to commit
the crime in the first place. I investigate the alibis of potential suspects,

eliminating those who are simply impossibilities based on confirmed alibis.

THE TRUTH WILL USUALLY BE STRAIGHTFORWARD

(The explanation demonstrates explanatory simplicity)

When considering a number of suspects, I look for the man or woman who
most simply accounts for the evidence. If one person can account for the
evidence (rather than some theory that requires three or four different
potential suspects to account for the same evidence), he or she is most
likely the killer.

THE TRUTH SHOULD BE EXHAUSTIVE
(The explanation displays explanatory depth)

I also consider the suspect who most exhaustively explains the evidence
that I have in a case. While a particular suspect may explain one, two, or
three pieces of evidence, the suspect who accounts for most (or all) of the

evidence is typically the killer.

THE TRUTH MUST BE LOGICAL

(The explanation possesses explanatory consistency)

The truth is rational; for this reason the truth about the identity of my killer
must also make sense. Suspects commit murders for reasons of one kind or
another, even if these reasons seem insufficient to you and me. The true
killer will make sense to the members of the jury once they understand his
or her misguided motivation. Conversely, some candidates will appear

logically inconsistent because they lack motive altogether.

THE TRUTH WILL BE SUPERIOR

(The explanation achieves explanatory superiority)

Finally, I recognize that one of my suspects is unique in the superior way
that he or she accounts for the evidence. In essence, this particular suspect
is a far better choice when compared to other candidates who are offered.
The quality of his or her connection to the evidence is better. When I see

this characteristic of explanatory superiority, I know I have my killer.

When a suspect meets these five criteria, I am confident that I have

reached the most reasonable conclusion; I know I have identified the killer.

AN ANCIENT DEATH-SCENE
INVESTIGATION

Now it’s time to apply this form of reasoning to a death scene that has been

the topic of discussion for over two thousand years. What happened to Jesus

of Nazareth? How can we explain His empty tomb? Did His disciples steal

His body? Was He only injured on the cross and later recovered? Did He

actually die and resurrect from the dead? We can approach these questions

as detectives, using abductive reasoning.

The question of Jesus’s fate might be compared to our dead-body

investigation. We examined our death scene by first identifying the

characteristics of the scene (the facts and pieces of evidence). We next

acknowledged a number of potential explanations that might account for

what we observed. Let’s apply that same approach to the issue of the

alleged death and resurrection of Jesus.

a The Minimal-
Facts Approach

Gary Habermas (distinguished
research professor at Liberty Baptist
Theological Seminary) has
popularized the minimal-facts
approach to examining — the
resurrection by identifying those
aspects of the resurrection story that
are accepted by the vast majority of
scholars and experts (from
Christians to nonbelievers). This list
of accepted “minimal facts” can then
be used as the basis for our process
of abductive reasoning.

researchers in the field.

Dr. Gary Habermas® and Professor

Mike LiconaZ have taken the time to

identify the “minimal facts” (or
evidences) related to the resurrection.
While there are many claims in the New
Testament related to this important
event, not all are accepted by skeptics
and wary investigators. Habermas and
Licona surveyed the most respected and
well-established historical scholars and
identified a number of facts that are
the vast

accepted by majority of

They limited their list to those facts that were strongly supported (using

the criteria of textual critics) and to those facts that were granted by

virtually all scholars (from skeptics to conservative Christians). Habermas

and Licona eventually wrote about their findings in The Case for the

Resurrection of Jesus.8

As a skeptic myself, I formed a list of New Testament claims as I first
investigated the resurrection. When I was an unbeliever, I found four of
Habermas and Licona’s minimal facts to be the most substantiated by both

friends and foes of Christianity:

1. Jesus died on the cross and was buried.

2. Jesus’s tomb was empty and no one ever produced His body.

3. Jesus’s disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the
dead.

4. Jesus’s disciples were transformed following their alleged

resurrection observations.

You’ll notice that none of these “minimal evidences” necessitates that
Jesus truly rose from the dead. There may be any number of explanations
that account for these facts (we’ll get to those in a moment). This is simply
a list of evidences that most scholars (believers and unbelievers alike)
would accept, and all of us (believers and unbelievers alike) must explain.
As I examined these bare-bones claims related to the resurrection, I
assembled the possible explanations that have been historically offered to
account for them (employing the process of abductive reasoning). I quickly
recognized that every one of these explanations had its own deficiencies
and liabilities (including the classic Christian account). Let’s take a look at

the potential explanations and list their associated difficulties:

THE DISCIPLES WERE WRONG ABOUT
JESUS’S DEATH

Some skeptics have offered the possibility that the disciples were mistaken
about Jesus’s death on the cross. They propose that Jesus survived the
beating (and the crucifixion) and simply appeared to the disciples after He

recovered.

THE PROBLEMS:

While this proposal seeks to explain the empty tomb, the resurrection
observations, and the transformation that occurred in the lives of the
apostles, it fails to satisfactorily explain what the disciples observed and
experienced when they pulled Jesus from the cross. It’s been my experience
that witnesses who first come upon the dead body of someone they care
about quickly check for the most obvious sign of life. Is the person who was
injured still breathing? This test is simple and effective; everyone is capable
of performing it, and even those who know nothing about human biology
instinctively resort to it. It’s also been my experience that three conditions
become apparent in the bodies of dead people: temperature loss, rigidity,
and lividity. Dead people lose warmth until they eventually reach the
temperature of their environment. They begin to feel “cold to the touch”
(this is often reported by those who find them). In addition, chemical
reactions begin to take place in the muscles after death occurs, resulting in
stiffening and rigidity known as “rigor mortis.” Dead people become rigid,
retaining the shape they were in when they died. Finally, when the heart
stops beating, blood begins to pool in the body, responding to the force of
gravity. As a result, purple discoloration begins to become apparent in those
areas of the body that are closest to the ground. In essence, dead bodies
look, feel, and respond differently from living, breathing humans. Dead
people, unlike those who are slipping in and out of consciousness, never

respond to their injuries. They don’t flinch or moan when touched. Is it

reasonable to believe that those who removed Jesus from the cross, took
possession of His body, carried Him to the grave, and spent time treating
and wrapping His body for burial would not have noticed any of these
conditions common to dead bodies?

In addition to this, the Gospels record the fact that the guard stabbed
Jesus and observed both blood and water to pour from His body. That’s an
important observation, given that the gospel writers were not coroners or
medical doctors. While I am certainly not a doctor, I’ve been to my share of
coroners’ autopsies, and I’ve spoken at length with coroner investigators at
crime scenes. When people are injured to the point of death (such as the
result of an assault or traffic accident), they often enter into some from of
“circulatory shock” prior to dying (because their organs and body tissues
are not receiving adequate blood flow). This can sometimes result in either
“pericardial effusion” (increased fluid in the membrane surrounding the
heart) or “pleural effusion” (increased fluid in the membrane surrounding
the lungs). When Jesus was pinned to the cross in an upright position
following the terrible flogging He received, it’s reasonable to expect that
this kind of effusion might have taken place in response to the circulatory
shock He suffered prior to dying. These fluids would certainly pour out of
His body if he were pierced with a spear. While the gospel writers might
expect to see blood, their observation of the water is somewhat surprising.
It is certainly consistent with the fact that Jesus was already dead when
stabbed by the guard.

In addition to these concerns from the perspective of a homicide
detective, there are other problems with the proposal that Jesus didn’t

actually die on the cross:

1. Many first-century and early second-century unfriendly Roman
sources (i.e., Thallus, Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Phlegon) and
Jewish sources (i.e., Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud) affirmed
and acknowledged that Jesus was crucified and died.

2. The Roman guards faced death if they allowed a prisoner to survive
crucifixion. Would they really be careless enough to remove a living
person from a cross?

3. Jesus would have to control His blood loss from the beatings,
crucifixion, and stabbing in order to survive, yet was pinned to the
cross and unable to do anything that might achieve this.

4. Jesus displayed wounds following the resurrection but was never
observed to behave as though He was wounded, in spite of the fact that
He appeared only days after His beating, crucifixion, and stabbing.

5. Jesus disappeared from the historical record following His reported
resurrection and ascension and was never sighted again (as one might
expect if He recovered from His wounds and lived much beyond the

young age of thirty-three).

THE DISCIPLES LIED ABOUT THE
RESURRECTION

Some non-Christians claim that the disciples stole the body from the grave

and later fabricated the stories of Jesus’s resurrection appearances.

THE PROBLEMS:

While this explanation accounts for the empty tomb and the resurrection
observations, it fails to account for the transformed lives of the apostles. In
my years working robberies, I had the opportunity to investigate (and

break) a number of conspiracy efforts, and I learned about the nature of

successful conspiracies. We’ll examine the problem with conspiracy
theories in chapter 7, but until then, let me simply say that I am hesitant to
embrace any theory that requires the conspiratorial effort of a large number
of people, over a significant period of time, when there is personally little or
nothing to gain by their effort. This theory requires us to believe that the
apostles were transformed and emboldened not by the miraculous
appearance of the resurrected Jesus but by elaborate lies created without
any benefit to those who were perpetuating the hoax.

In addition to this concern from the perspective of a detective, there are
other concerns that have to be considered when evaluating the claim that

the disciples lied about the resurrection:

1. The Jewish authorities took many precautions to make sure the tomb
was guarded and sealed, knowing that the removal of the body would
allow the disciples to claim that Jesus had risen (Matt. 27:62-66).

2. The people local to the event would have known it was a lie
(remember that Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:3-—8 that
there were still five hundred people who could testify to having seen
Jesus alive after His resurrection).

3. The disciples lacked the motive to create such a lie (more on this in
chapter 14).

4. The disciples’ transformation following the alleged resurrection is
inconsistent with the claim that the appearances were only a lie. How

could their own lies transform them into courageous evangelists?

THE DISCIPLES WERE DELUSIONAL
Some skeptics believe that the disciples, as a result of their intense grief and

sorrow, only imagined seeing Jesus alive after His death on the cross. These

critics claim that the appearances were simply hallucinations that resulted

from wishful thinking.

THE PROBLEMS:
This proposal fails to explain the empty tomb and only accounts for the
resurrection experiences at first glance. As a detective, I frequently
encounter witnesses who are related in some way to the victim in my case.
These witnesses are often profoundly impacted by their grief following the
murder. As a result, some allow their sorrow to impact what they remember
about the victim. They may, for example, suppress all the negative
characteristics of the victim’s personality and amplify all the victim’s
virtues. Let’s face it, we all have a tendency to think the best of people once
they have died. But these imaginings are typically limited to the nature of
the victim’s character and not the elaborate and detailed events that
involved the victim in the past. Those closest to the victim may be mistaken
about his or her character, but I’ve never encountered loved ones who have
collectively imagined an identical set of fictional events involving the
victim. It’s one thing to remember someone with fondness, another thing to
imagine an elaborate and detailed history that didn’t even occur.

Based on these experiences as a detective, there are other reasonable
concerns when considering the explanation that the disciples hallucinated or

imagined the resurrection:

1. While individuals have hallucinations, there are no examples of large
groups of people having the exact same hallucination.

2. While a short, momentary group hallucination may seem reasonable,
long, sustained, and detailed hallucinations are unsupported historically

and intuitively unreasonable.

3. The risen Christ was reportedly seen on more than one occasion and
by a number of different groups (and subsets of groups). All of these
diverse sightings would have to be additional group hallucinations of
one nature or another.

4. Not all the disciples were inclined favorably toward such a
hallucination. The disciples included people like Thomas, who was
skeptical and did not expect Jesus to come back to life.

5. If the resurrection was simply a hallucination, what became of
Jesus’s corpse? The absence of the body is unexplainable under this

scenario.

THE DISCIPLES WERE FOOLED BY AN
IMPOSTER

Some nonbelievers have argued that an imposter tricked the disciples and
convinced them that Jesus was still alive; the disciples then unknowingly

advanced the lie.

THE PROBLEMS:

While this explanation accounts for the resurrection observations and
transformed apostles, it requires an additional set of conspirators (other than
the apostles who were later fooled) to accomplish the task of stealing the
body. Many of my partners spent several years investigating fraud and
forgery crimes prior to joining us on the homicide team. They’ve learned
something about successful con artists. The less the victim understands
about the specific topic and area in which he or she is being “conned,” the
more likely the con artist will be successful. Victims are often fooled and
swindled out of their money because they have little or no expertise in the

area in which the con artist is operating. The perpetrator is able to use

sophisticated language and make claims that are outside of the victim’s
expertise. The crook sounds legitimate, primarily because the victim
doesn’t really know what truly is legitimate. When the targeted victim
knows more about the subject than the person attempting the con, the odds
are good that the perpetrator will fail at his or her attempt to fool the victim.

For this reason, the proposal that a sophisticated first-century con artist
fooled the disciples seems unreasonable. There are many concerns with

such a theory:

1. The impersonator would have to be familiar enough with Jesus’s
mannerisms and statements to convince the disciples. The disciples
knew the topic of the con better than anyone who might con them.

2. Many of the disciples were skeptical and displayed none of the
necessary naiveté that would be required for the con artist to succeed.
Thomas, for example, was openly skeptical from the beginning.

3. The impersonator would need to possess miraculous powers; the
disciples reported that the resurrected Jesus performed many miracles
and “convincing proofs” (Acts 1:2-3).

4. Who would seek to start a world religious movement if not one of
the hopeful disciples? This theory requires someone to be motivated to
impersonate Jesus other than the disciples themselves.

5. This explanation also fails to account for the empty tomb or missing

body of Jesus.

THE DISCIPLES WERE INFLUENCED BY
LIMITED SPIRITUAL SIGHTINGS

More recently, some skeptics have offered the theory that one or two of the

disciples had a vision of the risen Christ and then convinced the others that

these spiritual sightings were legitimate. They argue that additional
sightings simply came as a response to the intense influence of the first

visions.

THE PROBLEMS:
This proposal may begin to explain the transformation of the apostles, but it
fails to explain the empty tomb and offers an explanation of the resurrection
observations that is inconsistent with the biblical record. It’s not unusual to
have a persuasive witness influence the beliefs of other eyewitnesses (we’|l
discuss this in greater detail in chapter 4). I’ve investigated a number of
murders in which one emphatic witness has persuaded others that
something occurred, even though the other witnesses weren’t even present
to see the event for themselves. But these persuaded witnesses were easily
distinguished from the one who persuaded them once I began to ask for
their account of what happened. Only the persuader possessed the details in
their most robust form. For this reason, his or her account was typically the
most comprehensive, while the others tended to generalize since they didn’t
actually see the event for themselves. In addition, when pressed to repeat
the story of the one persuasive witness, the other witnesses eventually
pointed to that witness as their source, especially when pressured. While it’s
possible for a persuasive witness to convince some of the other witnesses
that his or her version of events is the true story, I’ve never encountered a
persuader who could convince everyone. The more witnesses who are
involved in a crime, the less likely that all of them will be influenced by any
one eyewitness, regardless of that witness’s charisma or position within the
group.

This theory also suffers from all the liabilities of the earlier claim that the

disciples imagined the resurrected Christ. Even if the persuader could

convince everyone of his or her first observation, the subsequent group
visions are still unreasonable for all the reasons we’ve already discussed.
There are many concerns related to the claim that a select number of

persuaders convinced the disciples of resurrection:

1. The theory fails to account for the numerous, divergent, and separate
group sightings of Jesus that are recorded in the Gospels. These
sightings are described specifically with great detail. It’s not reasonable
to believe that all these disciples could provide such specified detail if
they were simply repeating something they didn’t see for themselves.

2. As many as five hundred people were said to be available to testify
to their observations of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Could all of
these people have been influenced to imagine their own observations of
Jesus? It’s not reasonable to believe that a persuader equally persuaded
all these disciples even though they didn’t actually see anything that
was recorded.

3. This explanation also fails to account for the empty tomb or the

missing corpse.

THE DISCIPLES’ OBSERVATIONS WERE
DISTORTED LATER

Some unbelievers claim the original observations of the disciples were
amplified and distorted as the legend of Jesus grew over time. These
skeptics believe that Jesus may have been a wise teacher, but argue that the

resurrection is a legendary and historically late exaggeration.

THE PROBLEMS:
This explanation may account for the empty tomb (if we assume the body

was removed), but it fails to explain the early claims of the apostles related

to the resurrection (more about this in chapters 11 and 13). Cold-case
detectives have to deal with the issue of legend more than other types of
detectives. So much time has passed from the point of the original crime
that it seems possible that witnesses may now amplify their original
observations in one way or another. Luckily, I have the record of the first
investigators to assist me as I try to separate what the eyewitnesses truly
saw (and reported at the time of the crime) from what they might recall
today. If the original record of the first investigators is thorough and well
documented, I will have a much easier time discerning the truth about what
each witness saw. I’ve discovered that the first recollections of the
eyewitnesses are usually more detailed and reliable than what they might
offer thirty years later. Like other cold-case detectives, I rely on the original
reports as I compare what witnesses once said to what these witnesses are
saying today.

The reliability of the eyewitness accounts related to the resurrection, like
the reliability of the cold-case eyewitnesses, must be confirmed by the early
documentation of the first investigators. For this reason, the claim that the
original story of Jesus was a late exaggeration is undermined by several

concerms:

1. In the earliest accounts of the disciples’ activity after the crucifixion,
they are seen citing the resurrection of Jesus as their primary piece of
evidence that Jesus was God. From the earliest days of the Christian
movement, eyewitnesses were making this claim.

2. The students of the disciples also recorded that the resurrection was
a key component of the disciples’ eyewitness testimony (more on this

in chapter 13).

3. The earliest known Christian creed or oral record (as described by
Paul in 1 Cor. 15) includes the resurrection as a key component.

4. This explanation also fails to account for the fact that the tomb and
body of Jesus have not been exposed to demonstrate that this late

legend was false.

THE DISCIPLES WERE ACCURATELY
REPORTING THE RESURRECTION OF
JESUS

Christians, of course, claim that Jesus truly rose from the dead and that the

Gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts of this event.

THE PROBLEMS:

This explanation accounts for the empty tomb, the resurrection
observations, and the transformation of the apostles. It would be naive,
however, to accept this explanation without recognizing the fact that it also
has a liability that has been examined and voiced by skeptics and
nonbelievers. The claim that Jesus truly rose from the dead presents the

following concern and objection:

1. This explanation requires a belief in the supernatural, a belief that

Jesus had the supernatural power to rise from the dead in the first place.

ABDUCTIVE REASONING AND THE
RESURRECTION

I limited the evidence to four modest claims about the resurrection and kept
my explanatory options open to all the possibilities (both natural and
supernatural). The last explanation (although it is a miraculous,

supernatural explanation) suffers from the least number of liabilities and

deficiencies. If we simply enter into the investigation without a preexisting
bias against anything supernatural, the final explanation accounts for all of
the evidence without any difficulty. The final explanation accounts for the
evidence most simply and most exhaustively, and it is logically consistent
(if we simply allow for the existence of God in the first place). The final
explanation is also superior to the other accounts (given that it does not

suffer from all the problems we see with the other explanations).

oie |
BS Mat

If we approach the issue of the resurrection in an unbiased manner
(without the presuppositions described in the previous chapter) and assess it
as we evaluated the dead-body scene, we can judge the possible
explanations and eliminate those that are unreasonable. The conclusion that
Jesus was resurrected (as reported in the Gospels) can be sensibly inferred

from the available evidence. The resurrection is reasonable.

=A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
| CHECKLIST

Okay, let’s add another tool to our callout bag: an attitude about reason that
will help us as we examine and discuss the claims of Christianity. Like
other nonbelievers in our world today, I used to think of faith as the
opposite of reason. In this characterization of the dichotomy, I believed that
atheists were reasonable “freethinkers” while believers were simple,
mindless drones who blindly followed the unreasonable teaching of their
leadership. But if you think about it, faith is actually the opposite of
unbelief, not reason. As I began to read through the Bible as a skeptic, I
came to understand that the biblical definition of faith is a well-placed and
reasonable inference based on evidence. I wasn’t raised in the Christian
culture, and I think I have an unusually high amount of respect for
evidence. Perhaps this is why this definition of faith comes easily to me. I
now understand that it’s possible for reasonable people to examine the
evidence and conclude that Christianity is true. While my skeptical friends
may not agree on how the evidence related to the resurrection should be
interpreted, I want them to understand that I’ve arrived at my conclusions
reasonably.

As I speak around the country, I often encounter devoted, committed
Christians who are hesitant to embrace an evidential faith. In many
Christian circles, faith that requires evidential support is seen as weak and
inferior. For many, blind faith (a faith that simply trusts without question) is
the truest, most sincere, and most valuable form of faith that we can offer
God. Yet Jesus seemed to have a high regard for evidence. In John 14:11,
He told those watching Him to examine “the evidence of the miracles”
(NIV) if they did not believe what He said about His identity. Even after the
resurrection, Jesus stayed with His disciples for an additional forty days and

provided them with “many convincing proofs” that He was resurrected and

was who He claimed to be (Acts 1:2—3 Ntv). Jesus understood the role and
value of evidence and the importance of developing an evidential faith. It’s

time for all of us, as Christians, to develop a similarly reasonable faith.

CASE NOTES

5. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim
Section 104, accessed May 16, 2012, www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim _juryins.pdf.
6. For more information, see www.garyhabermas.com.

7. For more information, see www.risenjesus.com.

lee)

. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel, 2004), 47.

Chapter 3° = y
Principle #3:

THINK “CIRCUMSTANTIALLY”

“T think we’re done with this one,” I said as I closed the cover of the red
three-ring binder. I slipped it back onto the long shelf next to dozens of
other red books in the homicide vault and looked at my partner. “Now I just
have to tell Paula’s family.”

Our agency stores its cold cases next to our solved murders in a single
storage room adjacent to the detective division. Solved homicides are stored
in black binders, unsolved in red. The goal is to eventually fill the room
with nothing but black binders. After a year with Paula’s case, I was
frustrated that it was still in a red book.

Paula Robinson was murdered in the spring of 1988. She was a junior in
high school, and her murder was a true whodunit. The crime scene told us a
lot about what happened prior to her death but little about who was
responsible. We knew she voluntarily allowed the suspect to enter her
parent’s house. We knew that she had a sandwich with the killer, and he
smoked a cigarette in the backyard. We also knew that the killer was with
her in her bedroom where he tried to sexually assault her and eventually
ended up killing her in a horrific rage. This crime scene was one of the
worst in the history of our department.

While we knew a few things about the events leading up to the murder,

we knew far less about the appearance and identity of the killer. Neighbors

saw a young man leaving the residence following the crime, so we had a
rough idea of how tall he was and about how much he weighed. But he was
wearing a cap that covered his hair, and he fled so quickly that details
related to his appearance were hard to come by. We did, however, recover a
few of his hairs at the crime scene, and these hairs became our best lead.

The hair provided us with a partial DNA marker—not enough to enter
into the statewide database, but enough to compare to anyone we might
identify as a potential suspect. All we had to do was make a list of everyone
and anyone who might be responsible for this and then go out and get his
DNA. Sounds easy, right? Well, we spent a year identifying, locating, and
then traveling around the country to collect DNA swabs from everyone we
thought might have committed this crime. We swabbed thirty-four different
men. All of them voluntarily agreed to be swabbed; we didn’t have to write
a single search warrant. Why? Because none of them murdered Paula
Robinson; none of them had anything to fear. In the end, we ran out of
potential suspects. Nearly twenty-five years after the murder, we simply
exhausted our leads in the case and found ourselves without any viable
options. It was time to suspend the case once again.

I traveled out to see Paula’s mother one last time. Her hopes had been
elevated when we reopened the case (and she learned that we might have a
partial DNA marker). We tried to keep her expectations low, given the
difficult nature of these kinds of cases, but she couldn’t help but get excited
about the possibilities.

“Sometimes we have a suspect that fits the evidence and we’re able to put
together a case, but this is not one of those situations,” I tried to explain. “I

don’t need to have a DNA ‘hit’ in order to make a case, but in this situation,

the DNA that we do have has actually eliminated everyone under
consideration. I’m sorry.” Paula’s mother simply sat and wept.

In all my years working cold-case homicides, I’ve yet to encounter a case
that was assisted by DNA. Most cold-case teams make a living with DNA
hits, capitalizing on the latest technology and applying new science to old
cases. I haven’t been that lucky. My experiences with the latest scientific
advances have produced results like Paula’s case: a lot of work with no
progress. Instead, I’ve been successful assessing cases that have little or no
forensic evidence but are replete with what we call circumstantial evidence.

I wish that Paula’s case was only one such example.

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is
evidence that can prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are
given the example of a witness who saw that it was raining outside the
courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies he saw it raining

outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct

evidence that it was raining.”2 This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is
enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is raining. On the other hand,
circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not prove
something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving
something related to the question at hand. This related piece of evidence
can then be considered (along with additional pieces of circumstantial
evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are instructed,
“For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside
wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is

circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was

raining outside.”L2 The more pieces of consistent circumstantial evidence,
the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step
out of the courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little
spots of water on their clothing, or saw more people coming into the
courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with water, we would have
several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case
that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the
better the conclusion.

Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be
certain about what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that
have no direct evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene? Can the
truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence we have is
circumstantial? Absolutely.

Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and
circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and
circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or
disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts

necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the

other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”L! Juries
make decisions about the guilt of suspects in cases that are completely
circumstantial every day, and I’m very glad that they do; all my cold-case
homicides have been successfully prosecuted with nothing but
circumstantial evidence. Let me give you an example of the power and role

of circumstantial evidence in determining the truth of a matter.

MURDER, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
AND CERTAINTY

Let’s examine a hypothetical murder to demonstrate the power of direct and
circumstantial evidence. I want you to put yourself on the jury as the
following case is being presented in court. First, let’s lay out the elements of
the crime. On a sunny afternoon in a quiet residential neighborhood, the
calm was broken by the sound of screaming coming from a house on the
corner. The scream was very short and was heard by a neighbor who was
watering her lawn next door. This witness peered through the large picture
window of the corner house and observed a man assaulting her neighbor in
the living room. The man was viciously bludgeoning the victim with a
baseball bat. The witness next saw the suspect open the front door of the
house and run from the residence with the bloody bat in hand; she got a
long look at his face as he ran to a car parked directly in front of the

victim’s residence.

An Eyewitness Is 100%
Certain She Can Identify
the Suspect

If this witness was now sitting on the witness stand, testifying that the
defendant in our case was, in fact, the man she saw murdering the victim,
she would be providing us with a piece of direct evidence. If we came to
trust what this witness had to say, this one piece of direct evidence would be
enough to prove that the defendant committed the murder. But what if
things had been a little bit different? What if the suspect in our case had
been wearing a mask when he committed the murder? If this were the case,

our witness would be unable to identify the killer directly (facially) and

would be able to provide us with only scant information. She could tell us
about the killer’s general build and what kind of clothing he was wearing,
but little more. With this information alone, it would be impossible to prove
that any particular defendant was the true killer.

Now, let’s say that detectives developed a potential suspect (named Ron
Jacobsen) and began to collect information about his activity at the time of
the murder. When detectives questioned Ron, he hesitated to provide them
with an alibi. When he finally did offer a story, detectives investigated it
and determined that it was a lie. On the basis of this lie, do you think Ron is
guilty of this murder? He fits the general physical description offered by the
witness, and he has lied about his alibi. We now have two pieces of
circumstantial evidence that point to Ron as the killer, but without
something more, few of us would be willing to convict him. Let’s see what
else the detectives were able to discover.

During the interview with Ron, they

(~) The Sufficiency
“ ~ of Circumstantial
Evidence

“Before you may~ rely-— on
circumstantial evidence to conclude
that a fact necessary to find the
defendant guilty has been proved,
you must be convinced that the
People have proved each fact
essential to that conclusion beyond
a reasonable doubt. Also, before
you may rely on _ circumstantial
evidence to find the defendant guilty,
you must be convinced that the only
reasonable conclusion supported by
the circumstantial evidence is that
the defendant is guilty. If you can
draw two or more reasonable

learned that he had recently broken up
with the victim after a tumultuous
romantic relationship. He admitted to
arguing with her recently about this
relationship, and was extremely nervous
whenever detectives focused on her. He
repeatedly tried to minimize his
relationship with her. Are you any closer
to returning a verdict on Ron? He fits the
general description, has lied about an
alibi, and has been suspiciously nervous

and evasive in the interview. It’s not

conclusions from the circumstantial
evidence, and one_ of those
reasonable conclusions points to other reasonable explanations for what
innocence and another to guilt, you
must accept the one that points to
innocence. = However, = when three pieces of circumstantial evidence
considering circumstantial evidence,

you must accept only reasonable that point to Ron’s involvement in this
conclusions and reject any that are
unreasonable” (Section 224, Judicial
Council of California Criminal Jury — certain of his guilt.
Instructions, 2006).

looking good for Ron, but there may be

we’ve seen so far. Even though we have

crime, there still isn’t enough to be

What if I told you that responding
officers found that the suspect in this case entered the victim’s residence
and appeared to be waiting for her when she returned home? There were no
signs of forced entry into the home, however, and detectives later learned
that Ron was one of only two people who had a key to the victim’s house,
allowing him access whenever he wanted. Ron certainly seems to be a
“person of interest” now, doesn’t he? Ron matches the general description,
has lied to investigators, is nervous and evasive, and had a way to enter the
victim’s house. The circumstantial case is growing stronger with every
revelation.

What if you learned that the investigators were approached by a friend of
Ron’s who found a suicide note at Ron’s house? This note was dated on the
day of the murder and described Ron’s desperate state of mind and his
desire to kill himself on the afternoon that followed the homicide. Ron
apparently overcame his desire to die, however, and never took his own life.
The fact that Ron was suicidal immediately following the murder adds to
the cumulative case against him, but is it enough to tip the scales and
convince you that he is the killer? It was certainly enough to motivate the
detectives to dig a little deeper. Given all this suspicious evidence, a judge

agreed to sign a search warrant, and detectives served this warrant at Ron’s

house.

circumstantial evidence.

) The Cumulative

“’s Nature of
Circumstantial
Evidence

The nature of — circumstantial
evidence is such that any one piece
may be interpreted in more than one
way. For this reason, jurors have to
be careful not to infer something
from a single piece of evidence.
Circumstantial evidence usually
accumulates into a _ powerful
collection, however, and = each
additional piece corroborates those
that came before until, together, they
strongly support one inference over
another.

An explanation derived = from
circumstantial evidence becomes
more reasonable as the collection of
corroborating evidence grows and
the alternative explanations have
been deemed unreasonable.

There they discovered a number of

important pieces of

First, they discovered a baseball bat
hidden under Ron’s bed. This bat was
dented and damaged in a way that was
inconsistent with its use as a piece of
sporting equipment, and when the crime
lab did chemical tests, detectives learned
that while the bat tested negative for the
presence of blood, it displayed residue
that indicated it had been recently
washed with bleach. In addition to this,
investigators also discovered a pair of
blue jeans that had been chemically spot
cleaned in two areas on the front of the
legs. Like the bat, the jeans tested
negative for blood but demonstrated that
some form of household cleaner had
been used in two specific areas to

remove something. Finally, detectives

recovered a pair of boots from Ron’s house. The witness described the

boots she saw on the suspect and told responding officers that these boots

had a unique stripe on the side. The boots at Ron’s house also had a stripe,

and after some investigation with local vendors, detectives learned that this

unusual brand of boot was relatively rare in this area. Only two stores

carried the boot, and only ten pairs had been sold in the entire county in the

past five years. Ron happened to own one of these ten pairs.

There are many pieces of circumstantial evidence that now point to Ron
as the killer. He had access to the victim’s house, lied about his activity on
the day of the murder, behaved suspiciously in the interview, appeared
suicidal after the murder, and was in possession of a suspicious bat
matching the murder weapon, a pair of questionably spot-cleaned pants, and
a set of rare boots matching the suspect’s description. At this point in our
assessment, I think many of you as jurors are becoming comfortable with
the reasonable conclusion that Ron is our killer. But there is more.

Our eyewitness at the crime scene observed the suspect as he ran to his
getaway car, and she described this car to the detectives. The witness
believed that the suspect was driving a mustard-colored, early ’70s
Volkswagen Karmann Ghia. When executing the search warrant at Ron’s
house, detectives discovered (you guessed it) a yellow 1972 Karmann Ghia
parked in his garage. After examining the motor vehicle records, they
discovered that there was only one operational Karmann Ghia registered in
the entire state.

Is Ron the killer? Given all that we know about the crime, the only
reasonable conclusion is that Ron is the man who committed the murder. Is
it possible that Ron is just unlucky enough to suffer from an unfortunate
alignment of coincidences that make him appear to be guilty when he is
not? Yes, anything is possible. But is it reasonable? No. Everything points
to Ron, and when the evidence is considered cumulatively, Ron’s guilt is
the only reasonable conclusion. While there may be other explanations for
these individual pieces of evidence, they are not reasonable when
considered as a whole. Remember that as a juror, you are being asked to

return a verdict that is based on what’s reasonable, not what’s possible.

Timely 4
Suicide Note Ass

Suspicious
Spot-Cleaned
Pants

Dented bat

Fictiti ;
Dasesive Alibi .

Victim's

House Key

Nervous
mm, Evasive Interview

Height and
Weight

aL ; . y
GO # Incredibly Rare
Suspect Vehicle

Our case against Ron is entirely circumstantial; we don’t have a single

piece of forensic or eyewitness evidence that links him directly. These are

the kinds of cases I assemble every year as I bring cold-case murderers to

trial. The case against Ron is compelling and overwhelmingly sufficient. If

you, as a juror, understand the nature and power of circumstantial evidence,

you should be able to render a guilty verdict in this case.

THE COSMIC CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE

J “Causal”
</ Evidence

The Cosmological Argument:

1. Anything that begins to exist has
a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe must
have a cause.

The question of God’s existence might
be compared to our murder
investigation. We assembled the
circumstantial evidence and asked the
question “How reasonable is it that this
evidence can be interpreted in any way
other than to indicate that Ron did this?”

As the evidence accumulated, the

4. This cause must be eternal and
uncaused.
5 God is the most reasonable Similarly, we can look at the evidence in

explanation for such an uncaused
first cause.

likelihood of Ron’s innocence shrank.

our world (and in the universe) and ask,
“How reasonable is it that this evidence
can be interpreted in any way other than to confirm the existence of God?”
We live in a universe filled with characteristics (evidences) that demand an

explanation. Let’s consider just a few of them:

A UNIVERSE WITH A BEGINNING

The vast majority of scientists continue to acknowledge that the universe
came into being from nothing at some point in the distant past. Many have
articulated this as the “big bang theory” (commonly referred to as the
standard model of cosmology). But if the universe “began to exist,” what
“began” it? What caused the first domino to fall in the long sequence of
cause-and-effect dominoes? If this first domino fell over as the result of
being toppled by some other domino, how far back does this sequence go?
Scientists understand the absurdity of an endless sequence of dominoes
spanning back into infinite eternity; everyone is looking for an “uncaused
first cause” that is capable of starting the domino run all by itself. This
“uncaused first cause” must exist outside of space, time, and matter (as
nothing has ever been observed to cause itself to exist). What could be
uncaused and powerful enough to cause the universe? If the caused

universe once was not, why is it here at all? As Gottfried Leibniz famously

wrote, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” 22

We typically think of God as an eternal, all-powerful Being who exists
outside of space, time, and matter. The evidence of the finite universe (a
universe that has a beginning) points circumstantially to the existence of

such a God. An incredibly powerful, uncaused first cause outside of space,

time, and matter appears to be necessary to bring our universe into
existence. If an eternal, all-powerful Being exists, Leibniz’s famous
question has an answer. A Being of this nature might freely choose to create
a universe that demonstrated His power and served as a place where His
cherished creatures could begin to understand His nature. The causal
evidence of the universe is a significant piece of circumstantial evidence for

God’s existence.

A UNIVERSE WITH THE APPEARANCE OF
DESIGN

Science has also helped us understand that the universe appears to be
remarkably “fine-tuned” to support the existence of life. There are a number
of forces in the cosmos that are precisely calibrated to work together to
make life possible. The laws of electron mass, atomic mass, proton mass,
strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, speed of light, cosmological
constant, gravity, mass of the universe, and many more are finely tuned to
govern the universe and our world. Even within the atom itself, the precise
relationship between protons, neutrons, and electrons appears to be fine-
tuned and calibrated. According to Stephen Hawking, “If the proton-
neutron mass difference were not about twice the mass of the electron, one

would not obtain the couple of hundred or so stable nucleides that make up

the elements and are the basis of chemistry and biology.”23 The forces in
our universe, both small and large, appear to be fine-tuned to make life
possible.

In addition to these cosmic and atomic

xf “Fine-Tuning” forces, there are also specific conditions

"f Evidence that are necessary for a planet to support

The Anthropic Principle: life. If, for example, the size of the earth
(1) The physical constants and laws : ;

of the universe appear to be were altered slightly, life would not be
uniquely and specifically related to
one another (fine-tuned), making life
possible on earth. too small, it loses internal heat and

(2) The fine-tuned relationships of
these laws and constants appear to
be designed (as their existence by _ planet is too large, it will have too much
natural, unguided means seems
improbable and unlikely).

(3) A design requires an intelligent it turns out, the characteristics of a
designer; an incredibly vast and
complex design requires an

incredibly intelligent and powerful possible. The presence of liquid water,
designer.

possible on the planet. When a planet is

cannot keep its interior core active; if a

water and too thick of an atmosphere. As

planet must be just so for life to be

(4).Gou iS the: Most Féasonabie the proper distance from a star, the

explanation for such a vast, existence of a terrestrial crust, a properly
universal designer (and fine-tuner).
proportioned magnetic field, the correct
ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere, the existence of a large
moon, and a mother star of a specific and particular size and type are all
required. The path that leads to life on earth seems to be very narrow and
difficult, yet the forces that govern the universe (and our world) appear to
have a goal in mind: the production of a universe in which carbon-based life
can emerge.

How can random forces be so conspicuously aligned and organized to
support life? Is it merely a coincidence? That’s certainly possible, but is it
reasonable? If God exists, He is capable of fine-tuning the universe, and He
just might have a reason to do so. The Bible, for example, describes God as
the “Maker of heaven and earth” (Ps. 115:15), and describes Him as the
Being who designed and created the universe with the earth in mind. The

fine-tuning of the universe is another important piece of circumstantial

evidence that points to the existence of an intentional, supernatural,

powerful, and creative Being.

A UNIVERSE WITH COMPLEX LIFE

“Design”
* Evidence

The Teleological Argument:

(1) Structures and systems that (a)
cannot be explained by some
natural law requiring their
appearance, (b) exist in spite of the
high improbability they could result
from chance, and (c) conform to an
independently existing and
recognizable pattern are most
reasonably explained as coming
from the design efforts of an
intelligent agent.

(2) Biological systems possess
characteristics (e.g., the information
contained in the DNA code) that (a)
cannot be explained by some
natural law requiring their
appearance, (b) exist in spite of the
high improbability they could result
from chance, and (c) conform to an
independently existing and
recognizable pattern of specified
complexity.

(3) Biological systems are, therefore,
most reasonably explained as
coming from the design efforts of an
intelligent agent.

(4) God is the most reasonable
explanation for such an incredibly
wise, all-powerful, intelligent agent.

intervention of an_ intelligent

Scientists observe what they call the
“appearance of design” in biological
systems. Even Richard Dawkins (the
renowned and vocal atheist and emeritus
Oxford)

concedes that biological systems often

(although he

proposes that a blind, natural process can

fellow of New _ College,

appear designedl4
somehow account for this appearance).
There are many examples of cellular
biological machines that demonstrate
characteristics of “specified complexity”
and bear a_ striking resemblance to
systems and structures that have been
designed by humans (intelligent agents).
These characteristics lead many to the
reasonable belief that unguided forces
are simply insufficient to create such
structures. William Dembski (the well-
Statistician,

known mathematician,

theologian, and _intelligent-design

advocate) has argued that specified
(and,

complexity therefore, the

agent) can be identified by using an

“explanatory filter.” If an object or event (1) cannot be explained by some
natural law that necessitates its appearance, (2) exists in spite of the high
improbability that it could occur as the result of chance, and (3) conforms to
an independently existing and recognizable pattern, the most reasonable

inference is that it is the product of an intelligent designer.42

Perhaps the most important evidence suggesting the involvement of an
intelligent designer is the presence of DNA and the guiding role that this
DNA plays in the formation of biological systems. Science has
demonstrated that DNA is actually a digital code; DNA is specified
information. DNA exhibits characteristics that, when examined through
Dembski’s explanatory filter, are best explained by the creative activity of
an intelligent designer. As Stephen C. Meyer argues in his book Signature

in the Cell, “Intelligence is the only known cause of complex functionally

integrated information-processing systems” (italics original).2© In other
words, in the history of scientific and intellectual research, we can find no
example in which information came from anything other than an intelligent
source. If DNA is a form of specified information that guides the complex
process of cellular formation and biological structures, “intelligent design
stands as the best—most causally adequate—explanation for this feature of
the cell, just as it stands as the best explanation for the origin of the

information present in DNA itself.”L2

If biological systems display characteristics of design (in the form of
specified complexity), it is reasonable to conclude that a designer has been
involved in the process. What kind of designer could be responsible for the
information, complexity, and specificity we see in biological systems? If
God exists, He would certainly possess the characteristics and power to

accomplish such a thing. The presence of specified information in

biological systems is yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that

points to the existence of God.

A UNIVERSE WITH OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Each and every one of us feels a certain
“Moral” Evidence obligation to moral duty. We have an

intuitive sense of moral oughtness; we

The Axiological Argument:

(1) There is an_ objective, recognize that some things are right and
transcendent moral law. :

some things are wrong, regardless of
(2) Every moral law has a moral
lawgiver. culture, time, or location. We understand
(3) Therefore, there is an objective, —_ that it’s never morally right to lie, steal,
transcendent moral lawgiver.
(4) God is the most reasonable OF kill for the mere fun of it. These moral

explanation for such a transcendent

laws are transcendent and _ objective:
moral lawgiver.

their truth is not a matter of subjective
opinion. Regardless of how you or I might feel about these laws, the truth of
their moral status lies in the actions themselves, not in our subjective
opinions about the actions. We may discover moral truth, but we do not
invent it. Because of this, we are able to look across history and culture and
make meaningful judgments about the moral rightness or wrongness of any
given set of actions. We recognize that culture itself cannot be the source of
moral law, and that there is instead a “law above laws” that transcends all of
us. So, where does transcendent, objective moral truth come from?

All moral laws come from moral lawmakers. If there exists even one
transcendent moral law (e.g., it’s never morally right to kill someone for the
mere fun of it), there must exist a transcendent moral source.

Darwinian evolution has great difficulty accounting for the existence of
objective moral obligations for two reasons. First, if we live in a purely

natural, physical world governed by the “cause and effect” relationships

between chemical processes in our brains, “free will” is an illusion, and the
idea of true moral choice is nonsensical. How can I, as a detective, hold a
murderer accountable for a series of chemical reactions that occurred in his
brain when he didn’t have the freedom to escape the causal chain of
biological events?

In addition to this, Darwinian evolution cannot produce truly objective
morality. If moral truths are merely behavioral concepts that humans have
created to aid their survival, morality is once again rooted in the subject
(humans) rather than in the objective moral truth claim under consideration
(e.g., whether it’s ever morally right to kill someone for the mere fun of it).
If morality is simply a convention of our species, we’d better hope that
science-fiction writers are wrong about the possibility of sentient life in
other parts of the universe. Unless there is a “law above the laws,” an entity
such as Star Trek’s United Federation of Planets would be powerless to stop
immoral behavior. Objective morality must be rooted in something bigger
than the evolutionary development of any one species.

If God exists, He would certainly transcend all species, cultures,
locations, and moments in time. For this reason, the existence of
transcendent moral truth is best explained by the existence of God as the
transcendent source of such truth. Once again, we have an important piece
of circumstantial evidence.

The cumulative circumstantial case for God’s existence is much like the
circumstantial case we made in our murder investigation. The more
evidence we gathered, the clearer it was that Ron’s involvement as the killer
could account for all of it. Ron was either incredibly unlucky or incredibly
guilty. At some point we recognized that the evidence made Ron’s guilt in

the matter the only reasonable inference, and we got there without a single

piece of direct evidence. In a similar way, the circumstantial evidence in our
universe is consistent with God’s existence and involvement as the
uncaused first cause, the fine-tuner, the designer, and the moral lawgiver
required to account for all the evidence we observe. As in the homicide
investigation, the more evidence we gather, the more reasonable our
conclusion becomes. We’ve only briefly described four lines of
circumstantial evidence for God’s existence. Much more can (and has) been
said about these areas of evidence by the expert witnesses listed at the end
of this book. In addition to these evidences, investigators and philosophers
have offered many additional arguments (including the Ontological
Argument, the Transcendental Argument, the Argument from Religious or
Aesthetic Experience, and many more). The cumulative circumstantial
evidence pointing to God’s existence is either incredibly coincidental or a
compelling indication of the truth of the matter. At some point, God’s
existence is the only reasonable inference in light of the evidence, and like

our homicide, we can get there without a single piece of direct (or forensic)

evidence.
The Transcendental Design
Fine-Tuning Argument ‘ Evidence
Evidence The Teleological Argument

The Argument from im’; pe. a ~ The Argument from

Religious Experience

Causal i) Moral
Evidence =f Evid
; > [Evidence
The Cosmological Argument The Ontological Tie hadesl Reman

Argument

As the circumstantial case against Ron grew, the likelihood of his guilt
also grew. As the circumstantial case for God grows, the likelihood of His
existence also grows. If the evidence for Ron’s guilt is compelling enough
to reasonably conclude that he is guilty, the evidence for God’s existence is

compelling enough to reasonably conclude that He exists.

fm» A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
(=| CHECKLIST

It’s time to add another principle to our investigative checklist as we
assemble the tools we’ll need to investigate and communicate the claims of
Christianity. Circumstantial evidence has been unfairly maligned over the
years; it’s important to recognize that this form of evidence is not inferior in
the eyes of the law. In fact, there are times when you can trust
circumstantial evidence far more than you can trust direct evidence.
Witnesses, for example, can lie or be mistaken about their observations;
they must be evaluated before they can be trusted (we’ll talk about that in
the next chapter). Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, cannot lie; it
is what it is. You and I have the ability to assess and make an inference
from the circumstantial evidence using our own reasoning power to come to
a conclusion. It’s not a coincidence that I was a nonbeliever before I learned
anything about the nature of evidence. In those days, as I was evaluating the
claims of Christianity, I demanded a form of evidence (direct evidence) that
simply isn’t available to anyone who is studying historical events. I failed to
see that rejecting (or devaluing) circumstantial evidence would prevent me
from understanding anything about history (when eyewitnesses of a
particular event are unavailable for an interview). If I continued to reject (or

devalue) circumstantial evidence, I would never have been able to

successfully prosecute a single cold-case killer. All of us need to respect the
power and nature of circumstantial evidence in determining truth so that we
can be open to the role that circumstantial evidence plays in making the
case for Christianity.

I’m alarmed sometimes when I hear Christians make inaccurate
statements related to the nature of evidence. When discussing evidence with
skeptics, we don’t need to concede that a particular fact related to the
Christian worldview is not a piece of evidence simply because it is not a
piece of direct evidence. Even though a particular fact may not have the
individual power to prove our case in its entirety, it is no less valid as we
assemble the evidence. When we treat circumstantial evidence as though it
is not evidence at all, we do ourselves a disservice as ambassadors for the
Christian worldview. Circumstantial evidence is powerful if it is properly
understood. When defending our belief in the existence of God, the
resurrection of Jesus, or the validity of the Christian worldview, we may
need to take some time to explain the nature, role, and power of
circumstantial evidence. It’s time well spent, because most of our friends,
family members, and coworkers have not given this much thought. We need
to help people understand the depth and quantity of the evidence that
supports our view. Remember, circumstantial cases are powerful when they
are cumulative. The more evidence that points to a specific explanation, the
more reasonable that explanation becomes (and the more unlikely that the
evidence can be explained away as coincidental). Take the time to discover
and master the evidence for yourself so you can articulate the deep, rich,

and robust evidential support for the claims of Christianity.

CASE NOTES

9. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim
Section 223.

10. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions,
CalCrim Section 223.

11. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions,
CalCrim Section 223.

12. Gottfried Leibniz, Philosophical Writings, trans. and ed. G. H. R. Parkinson (London: Dent,
1973), 199.

13. Stephen Hawking, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (New York: Bantam,
1993), Google eBook, chapter 7.

14, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 188.

15. For more information on design inferences, refer to William A. Dembski, The Design Inference:
Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
16. Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New
York: HarperOne, 2009), 346.

17. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 346.

ZA
oy

at
a

sy

=
“

NT

Chapter 4
Principle #4:

TEST YOUR WITNESSES

“Mr. Strickland, how can you be so sure that this man is the same man who
robbed you?” The defendant’s attorney stood up as he examined the witness
and pointed to the man sitting next to him at the defense table. His
questions were becoming more accusatory. “Isn’t it true that the robbery
occurred well after sunset?”

“Well, yes, it was about ten thirty at night.” Jerry Strickland seemed to be
preparing himself for an attack. He correctly interpreted the tone of the
attorney’s question and straightened himself in the witness box. He
scratched his arm nervously. I knew that Strickland was a smart guy, and I
was curious to see how he would hold up under this pressure. I had been
working the robbery-homicide desk when I was assigned this case, and I
knew it would all come down to Strickland’s identification of the suspect.

“T notice you are wearing glasses today, but isn’t it true that you weren’t
wearing those glasses on the night of the robbery?” The defense attorney
began to walk slowly toward Mr. Strickland, his arms crossed, his chin
slightly elevated as he glanced briefly at the jury.

“T had my glasses on to start with, but I got punched and they flew off my
head,” replied Strickland as he pushed his glasses up on his nose. “After
that I’m not sure what happened to them.” Jerry’s testimony started off

calmly enough under the direct questioning of the deputy district attorney,

but now he seemed to be losing his confidence under the pressure of the
cross-examination.

“How long did this episode with your attacker last?” the defense attorney
asked.

“Just a few seconds,” replied Strickland.

“So let me get this right. You’re willing to send my client to jail for years,
yet you only saw the suspect for a few seconds, late at night, in the dark,
without the benefit of your glasses?” The defendant’s attorney was now
facing the jury. His question was rhetorical; he made his point and was now
watching the jury to see if it had the impact he intended.

“Well, I-I’m not sure what to say,” Strickland stammered hesitantly as he
sank in his chair.

The prosecutor was an energetic, competent attorney who understood the
value of this victim’s eyewitness testimony. She waited for the defense
attorney to return to his seat and then prepared for her redirect. “Mr.
Strickland, you said earlier that you were robbed by this man. I want to ask
you a question. Given your observations of the robber prior to the moment
when he punched you; your observations of the suspect’s height, the shape
and features of his face, his body type, and the structure of his physique, I
want you to rate your certainty about the identity of the suspect. On a scale
of one to one hundred, how certain are you that this man sitting here at the
defendant’s table is the man who robbed you?”

Jerry Strickland sat up in his chair and leaned forward. He paused just
slightly before answering. “I am 100 percent certain that this is the man
who robbed me. There is no doubt in my mind.”

The jury returned a verdict in less than thirty minutes and convicted the

defendant, largely on the strength of Strickland’s eyewitness testimony.

While the defense attorney did his best to illustrate the potential limits of
the victim’s ability to accurately describe the suspect, the jury was
convinced that Jerry Strickland was a competent eyewitness. They believed
his testimony, and the rest was easy. Once you come to trust an eyewitness,
you eventually must come to terms with the testimony that eyewitness has
offered.

LEARNING TO TRUST AN EYEWITNESS

So, how do we come to trust what an eyewitness has to say? How can we
evaluate a witness to make sure he or she is someone we can trust in the
first place? Jurors are asked to evaluate witnesses in court cases every day.
If you were sitting on a jury in the state of California today, the judge would
give you some advice about assessing the witnesses who are about to testify
before you. In fact, the judge would tell you that you ought to consider a

number of factors and ask yourself the following questions:

1. How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the
things about which the witness testified?

2. How well was the witness able to remember and describe what
happened?

3. What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?

4. Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?
5. Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or
prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or
a personal interest in how the case is decided?

6. What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?

7. Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or

inconsistent with his or her testimony?

8. How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other
evidence in the case?

9. [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the
witness testified? |

10. [Did the witness admit to being untruthful? ]

11. [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness? ]

12. [Has the witness been convicted of a felony? ]

13. [Has the witness engaged in (other) conduct that reflects on his or
her believability?]

14. [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for

his or her testimony? }18

These are the questions that jurors are encouraged to ask as they evaluate
witnesses who testify in court. Sometimes these witnesses are testifying in
trials that are a matter of life and death—trials that involve defendants who
may ultimately face the death penalty. In the end, there are four critical

areas of concern when it comes to evaluating an eyewitness:

WERE THEY EVEN THERE?

First, we’ve got to find out if the witness was even present to observe
anything in the first place. This concern is captured by questions like “How
well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about
which the witness testified?” You might think that this is a silly issue to
have to examine, but I can tell you from personal experience that there are
times when people will claim to be a witness or participant in a case when
they, in fact, were nowhere near the event. I once reopened a case from the
early 1970s that my father helped investigate when he was working

homicides. I remembered the case as a boy and the stress that it caused my

dad when it went unsolved. The case was well known in the region and
received an incredible amount of publicity. As I examined the cold case
thirty years later, I discovered that the original investigators had been
deceived by a man who came forward and confessed to being the killer. He
sat with detectives over the course of many days and offered just enough
detail to convince them that he had murdered the victim. In truth, he had
nothing to do with the crime, but was seeking the attention and twisted
fame it brought him. He was eventually exposed as a fraud, but his
involvement in the case distracted the investigators long enough to take
them off the trail of the real killer. This kind of thing happens in high-
profile cases that offer fifteen minutes of fame. This is why we need to
make sure that an eyewitness was truly present to see what he or she claims

to have seen.

HAVE THEY BEEN HONEST AND

ACCURATE?

The primary concern that most of us
= Assume the have when evaluating witnesses is the
Ds Witness Is issue of credibility. A witness who was

Trustworthy present at the time of the crime but who

Jurors have a duty to take an is lying about what happened is of no
unbiased look at witnesses and
assume the best in them until they

have a reason to do otherwise. issue with questions like “Did the
Jurors are told to set aside “any bias : :

or prejudice [they] may have,” Witness make a statement in the past that
including any based on the witness’s
gender, race, religion, or national
origin. In addition jurors are her testimony?” In recent years, with the
instructed: “If the evidence
establishes that a witness’s

character for truthfulness has not been publicized and broadcast

value. The jury instructions address this

is consistent or inconsistent with his or

large number of court cases that have

been discussed among the people nationally, we’ve all seen examples of
who know him or her, you may

conclude from the lack of discussion witnesses who have been discredited as
that the witness’s character for
truthfulness is good” (Section 105,

Judicial Council of California accused of child molestation in 2003, for
Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).

liars. When Michael Jackson was

example, the victim’s mother took the
stand as a witness. The defense exposed the fact that she had lied about a
prior shoplifting incident in 1998. When the jurors discovered this, many (if
not all) discredited her testimony in the 2003 case. When a witness is
caught about a lie in the past, his or her testimony about the case can be
called into question. It’s important, however, to remember that jurors are

also given this instruction by the judge:

If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something
significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything
that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some

things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the

part that you think is true and ignore the rest.42

There may be a good reason for a witness to lie about something
unrelated to the case (perhaps to avoid embarrassment or to protect the
privacy of a loved one), yet still tell the truth about what he or she saw in
the crime under consideration. Let’s face it, all of us have lied about one
thing or another. Jurors have to decide if a witness has simply lied on
occasion (for some understandable reason) or is an untrustworthy, habitual
liar. In the Michael Jackson case, the jurors seemed to have decided that the

witness was the latter.

CAN THEY BE VERIFIED?

It’s fair to ask if a witness’s observations can be verified by some other
piece of evidence or testimony. This concern is captured in questions like
“How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence
in the case?” or “Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which
the witness testified?” If a witness tells you that the defendant committed a
robbery at a bank teller’s window, and you come to find the defendant’s
fingerprints at that particular counter, you’ve got a piece of corroborating
evidence that begins to verify what the eyewitness has to say. The direct
evidence of additional eyewitnesses can also verify a statement, and
circumstantial evidence (forensic or otherwise) can help validate what a

witness has offered.

DO THEY HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE?
Finally, jurors have to figure out if a witness has a motive to lie. That’s why
the jury instructions include questions like “Was the witness’s testimony
influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with
someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is
decided?” I’ve investigated a number of spousal-abuse cases involving
husbands and wives who have assaulted each other. Trying to get to the
truth of the matter was extremely difficult. Both sides were so angry with
one another that they were willing to do or say anything to get the ex-
spouse in trouble. Each appeared to have a motive to lie or exaggerate about
the violent behavior of the other spouse, and jurors had difficulty discerning
the truth amid all the anger and embellishment.

These four critical areas should be examined before we trust an
eyewitness. If we can establish that a witness was present, has been
accurate and honest in the past, is verified by additional evidence, and has

no motive to lie, we can trust what the witness has to say.

“9 A Disagreement
“/ Is Nota
Disqualifier

Jurors are instructed to be cautious
not to automatically disqualify a
witness just because some part of
his or her statement may disagree
with an additional piece of evidence
or testimony: “Do not automatically
reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts.
Consider whether the differences
are important or not. People
sometimes honestly forget things or
make mistakes about what they
remember. Also, two people may
witness the same event yet see or
hear it differently’ (Section 105,
Judicial Council of California
Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).

SO, WHY CAN’T THEY
AGREE?
If there’s one thing my experience as a
detective has revealed, however, it’s that
witnesses often make conflicting and
inconsistent statements when describing
what they saw at a crime scene. They
frequently disagree with one another and
either fail to see something obvious or
describe the same event in a number of
conflicting ways. The more witnesses
involved in a case, the more likely there
will be points of disagreement.

I can remember a particular homicide
that occurred in a restaurant parking lot

in our town, late one rainy night, well

after our homicide team went home for the day. Patrol officers responded to

the scene and discovered that the suspect was already long gone. The

officers located three witnesses and interviewed them very briefly. They

quickly recognized that the murder investigation would require the

involvement of our team. Radio dispatch called our sergeant, and he began

waking us up by telephone, summoning four of us to handle the

investigation. It took me nearly an hour to get into a suit and drive to the

location of the crime. When I got there, I discovered that the officers

gathered the witnesses and put them in the backseat of their police unit so

they wouldn’t get drenched in the rain. This simple act of kindness nearly

ruined the case.

I learned many years ago the importance of separating witnesses. If
eyewitnesses are quickly separated from one another, they are far more
likely to provide an uninfluenced, pure account of what they saw. Yes, their
accounts will inevitably differ from the accounts of others who witnessed
the same event, but that is the natural result of a witness’s past experience,
perspective, and worldview. I can deal with the inconsistencies; I expect
them. But when witnesses are allowed to sit together (prior to being
interviewed) and compare notes and observations, I’m likely to get one
harmonized version of the event. Everyone will offer the same story. While
this may be tidier, it will come at the sacrifice of some important detail that
a witness is willing to forfeit in order to align his or her story with the other
witnesses. I’m not willing to pay that price. I would far rather have three
messy, apparently contradictory versions of the event than one harmonized
version that has eliminated some important detail. I know in the end I’Il be
able to determine the truth of the matter by examining all three stories. The
apparent contradictions are usually easy to explain once I learn something
about the witnesses and their perspectives (both visually and personally) at
the time of the crime.

Let me give you an example. Many years ago I investigated a robbery in
which a male suspect entered a small grocery store, walked up to the
counter, and calmly contacted the cashier. The suspect removed a handgun
from his waistband and placed it on the counter. He pointed it at the cashier,
using his right hand to hold the gun on the counter, his finger on the trigger.
The suspect quietly told the cashier to empty the register of its money and
place it in a plastic bag. The cashier complied and gave the robber all the
money in the drawer. The robber then calmly walked from the store. This

robbery was observed by two witnesses, who were properly separated and

interviewed apart from one another. When the crime report was assigned to

me as the investigator, I read the officer’s summary and wondered if the

witnesses were describing the same robber:

Younger Boy in His Teens
Very Polite with Sweet Voice
Did Not Have a Gun

Bought Something at the Store

How —— Described the Pon act

23-yr—old_-Male. Reaanaiey

Single;~No~Kids
e—Apprentice-Plumber__...

2 ra een
eee

Man about 24- a4 Years Old
Threatening Scowl

Had a Ruger PA5 Imm Handgun
Bought Nothing at the Store

Wore an Izod Polo Shirt
Had No Vehicle

Might Have Worn a T-Shirt
Ran to a ’90s Tan Nissan

At first, these statements seemed to describe two different men
committing two different crimes. But, the more I spoke with the witnesses,
the more I realized that both were reliable in spite of the fact they seemed to
be saying different things about the suspect. Sylvia Ramos was hurrying
home from work and stopped at the store to purchase some milk and a few
small items. She stood in line behind the suspect as he calmly committed
the robbery. While she heard the tone of his voice, she never heard his
words distinctly, and she never saw a gun. She described him as a polite
young man in his teens. Based on the way the cashier handed the robber the
bag, Sylvia believed that the robber made a purchase prior to committing
the crime. Sylvia immediately recognized the suspect’s blue shirt as a
classic IZOD polo because many of the men in her office wore this style of

shirt when she first started her career as a designer. In fact, she had recently

purchased one for her husband. Sylvia watched the robber walk slowly out
of the business and across the parking lot as he left the area. She was sure
that he didn’t have a “getaway” car.

Paul Meher was visiting the cashier when the robbery occurred. The
cashier was an old friend from high school, and Paul was standing behind
the counter with his friend at the time of the crime. Paul couldn’t remember
many details related to the suspect’s clothing, but believed that he was
wearing a T-shirt. He was certain, however, that the robber pointed a gun at
his friend, and he recognized this pistol as a Ruger P95 because his father
owned one that was identical. Paul focused on the gun during most of the
robbery, but he also observed that the suspect scowled and had a menacing
expression on his face. The robber spoke his words slowly and deliberately
in a way that Paul interpreted as threatening. Paul described the man as just
slightly older than him, at approximately twenty-four to twenty-five years
of age. He was certain that the suspect made no effort to purchase anything
prior to the crime, and afterward, Paul had a visual angle through the glass
storefront that allowed him to see that the robber walked to the end of the
parking lot, then ran to a tan-colored, 1990s Nissan four-door.

Once I interviewed these two witnesses, I understood why they seemed to
disagree on several key points. In the end, many things impact the way
witnesses observe an event. A lot depends on where a witness is located in
relationship to the action. We’ve also got to consider the personal
experiences and interests that cause some witnesses to focus on one aspect
of the event and some to focus on another. Sylvia was older and had
difficulty estimating the age of the suspect, but her design interests and
experience with her husband helped her to correctly identify the kind of

shirt the robber wore. Paul had personal experience with pistols and was

sitting in a position that gave him an entirely different perspective as he
watched the robbery unfold. As the detective handling the case, it was my
job to understand each witness well enough to take the best they had to
offer and come to a conclusion about what really happened. Every case I
handle is like this; witnesses seldom agree on every detail. In fact, when
two people agree completely on every detail of their account, I am inclined
to believe that they have either contaminated each other’s observations or
are working together to pull the wool over my eyes. I expect truthful,

reliable eyewitnesses to disagree along the way.

THE LAST WITNESS TO BE INTERVIEWED

Before I move away from this issue, it’s important to add one final
observation. I’ve worked a number of murder cases where there were many
eyewitnesses who had to be interviewed. While at the scene, I took each
witness off to the side to get his or her account without the input of other
eyewitnesses. On one occasion, I discovered that an additional, previously
unidentified witness was quietly standing within earshot of my interviews,
waiting for an opportunity to talk to me. Up to this point, none of the
officers or detectives was even aware of the fact that this person had seen
anything, so while I was happy to hear what she had to say, it was clear that
she had not been isolated. She was already aware of what others had
described. When interviewed, she actually provided important information
that the other witnesses had missed completely. I was grateful that she had
been patient and waited to identify herself to us.
I observed something interesting about
oD The Early her statement, however. Because she had
/Recognition of been eavesdropping on the interviews
the Eyewitnesses we were conducting and was already

The early church fathers and
leaders recognized that the Gospels
were the eyewitness testimony of
the apostles, and they set the
Gospels apart for this reason. The

aware of what others said, she was
inclined to skip over the details that had

been offered by the first witnesses. She

ancient Christian author Tertullian
wrote in AD 212: “The same
authority of the apostolic churches
will afford evidence to the other
Gospels also, which we possess
equally through their means, and
according to their usage—l mean
the Gospels of John and Matthew—
whilst that which Mark published
may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose
interpreter Mark was” (Against
Marcion).

did an excellent job of filling in the
blanks, but a poor job of covering the
essential details of the crime that others
had already described. If I had not
repeatedly asked her to start at the
beginning and tell me everything she
saw, she would undoubtedly have given
me an incomplete account that, if
compared to the first statements of eyewitnesses, would have looked like a
contradiction. In my years of collecting eyewitness statements, I’ve come to
recognize that witnesses who are already aware of what has been offered
are far more likely to simply supply the missing details. While this witness
may offer something that’s critical to the case and was previously unknown,

he or she may also offer a version that is less detailed in many ways.

THE GOSPEL WRITERS AS EYEWITNESSES

Growing up as a skeptic, I never thought of the biblical narrative as an
eyewitness account. Instead, I saw it as something more akin to religious
mythology—a series of stories designed to make a point. But when I read
through the Gospels (and then the letters that followed them), it appeared
clear that the writers of Scripture identified themselves as eyewitnesses and
viewed their writings as testimony. Peter identified himself as a “witness of
the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pet. 5:1) and as one of many “eyewitnesses of
His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16—17). The apostle John claimed that he was writing

as an eyewitness when he described the life and death of Jesus. He

identified himself as “the disciple who is testifying to these things and
wrote these things” (John 21:24), and said that he was reporting “what we
have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and
touched with our hands” (1 John 1:1). The apostles saw themselves first and
foremost as a group of eyewitnesses, and they understood that their shared
observations were a powerful testimony to what they claimed to be true.
When Judas left the group, they quickly replaced him and demonstrated the
high value they placed on their status as eyewitnesses. They set out to
choose one “of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord
Jesus went in and out among us—beginning with the baptism of John until
the day that He was taken up from us” (Acts 1:21—22). They replaced Judas
with another eyewitness.

As I read through the book of Acts, I

©) The Committed realized that the apostles repeatedly
2) Biblical identified themselves as eyewitnesses
Witnesses and called upon their testimony as the

The New Testament accounts foundation for all their preaching and
repeatedly use words that are
translated as “witness,” “testimony,”
“bear witness,” or “testify.” They are Pentecost, he told the crowd that the

translated from versions of the a a .
Greek words marturia or martureo. iSciples “are all witnesses” of the fact

The modern word martyr finds its of the resurrection (Acts 2:32), and he
root in these same Greek words; the

terms eventually evolved into repeated this claim later at Solomon’s

describing people who (like the ;
apostolié Gyewitnesses). temained Colonnade (Acts 3:15). When Peter and

So committed to their testimony John were eventually arrested for
concerning Jesus that they would

rather die than recant. testifying about the resurrection, they
told the members of the Sanhedrin, “We

teaching. In Peter’s very first sermon at

cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20), and

they promptly returned to the streets where they “were giving testimony to
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 4:33). Over and over again, the
apostles clearly identified themselves as “witnesses of all the things He
[Jesus] did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem” (Acts 10:39), and
used this status as the foundation for everything they taught. Even Paul
relied on his status as an eyewitness. When Christian communities began to
blossom across Asia Minor, Paul wrote to many of them and identified
himself both as an apostle and as someone who could testify as an
eyewitness. Paul said that Jesus “appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also” (1 Cor.
15:7-8).

As the apostles began to write out their eyewitness observations, early
Christians gave these accounts great authority and respect. In fact, as the
“canon” of emerging New Testament Scripture was examined by the church
fathers (the early leaders of the growing Christian community), the issue of
apostolic authority was the first and foremost criterion for whether or not a
particular writing made it into the collection. Was the text written by an
apostolic eyewitness (Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, et al.) or by
someone who at least had meaningful access to one or more of these
eyewitnesses (e.g., Mark and Luke)? Only the accounts of the original
eyewitnesses were given serious consideration, and the Gospels have
always been understood as a set of eyewitness accounts.

The question, of course, is whether or not they can be trusted, and that’s
the focus of the second section of this book. We’ll investigate the Gospels
as eyewitness accounts, asking the same kinds of questions that judges
encourage jurors to ask of witnesses in criminal proceedings. We’ll ask if

the apostolic eyewitnesses were present at the events that have been

recorded. We’ll ask if they were accurate and honest. We’ll ask if their
testimony can be verified in some way. Finally, we’ll investigate whether or
not they had an ulterior motive. When jury members conclude that a
witness can be trusted, they must come to grips with what the witness has to
say and use this testimony as the foundation for future decisions they may
make about the truth of the case. If the gospel writers are found to be
reliable, we can accept their statements as the foundation for future

decisions we make about the truth of Jesus’s life and God’s existence.

THE EXPECTATIONS FROM EXPERIENCE

Before I ever examined the reliability of the gospel accounts, I had a
reasonable expectation about what a dependable set of eyewitness
statements might look like, given my experience as a detective. When more
than one witness observes a crime, I expect to see the following

characteristics in their statements:

THEIR STATEMENTS WILL BE PERSPECTIVAL

Each eyewitness will describe the event from his or her spatial and
emotional perspective. Not everyone will be in the same position to see the
same series of events or the same details. I will have to puzzle together
statements that might at first appear contradictory; each statement will be

colored by the personal experiences and worldviews of the witnesses.

THEIR STATEMENTS WILL BE PERSONAL

Each eyewitness will describe the event in his or her own language, using
his or her own expressions and terms. As a result, the same event may be
described with varying degrees of passion or with divergent details that are

simply the result of individual tastes and interests.

Perspectives and
| Biblical Inerrancy

The traditional definition of biblical
inerrancy maintains that the Bible is
accurate and completely free of
error. Inerrancy does not require,
however, that the biblical texts be
free of any personal perspectives or
idiosyncrasies. In fact, the existence
of these distinctive features only
helps us recognize the accounts as
true eyewitness statements written
by real people who revealed their
human gifts (and limitations) along
the way. These characteristics can
help us have confidence in both the
accuracy and the reliability of the

THEIR STATEMENTS MAY
CONTAIN AREAS OF COMPLETE
AGREEMENT

Some aspects of each eyewitness
statement may be completely identical.
This is particularly true when witnesses
describe aspects of the crime that were
dramatic or important to the sequence of
events. It’s also true when _ later
witnesses are aware of what others have
offered and simply affirm the prior
description by telling me, “The rest

occurred just the way he said.”

accounts.

LATER STATEMENTS MAY FILL IN
THE GAPS
Finally, as described earlier, I expect late witnesses who are aware of prior

statements to simply fill in what has not been said previously.

It turns out that my expectations of true, reliable eyewitness accounts are
met (at least preliminarily and superficially) by the Gospels. All four
accounts are written from a different perspective and contain unique details
that are specific to the eyewitnesses. There are, as a result, divergent
(apparently contradictory) recollections that can be pieced together to get a
complete picture of what occurred. All four accounts are highly personal,
utilizing the distinctive language of each witness. Mark is far more
passionate and active in his choice of adjectives, for example. Several of the

accounts (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) contain blocks of identical (or nearly

identical) descriptions. This may be the result of common agreement at
particularly important points in the narrative, or (more likely) the result of
later eyewitnesses saying, “The rest occurred just the way he said.” Finally,
the last account (John’s gospel) clearly attempts to fill in the details that
were not offered by the prior eyewitnesses. John, aware of what the earlier
eyewitnesses had already written, appears to make little effort to cover the
same ground. Even before examining the Gospels with the rigor we are
going to apply in section 2, I recognized that they were consistent with what

I would expect to see, given my experience as a detective.

THE RELIABLE BIBLE

In the end, it all comes down to the reliability of these accounts. When I
was a nonbeliever, I heard Christians talk about the inerrancy or infallibility
of the Bible, at least as these terms are typically applied to the original
manuscripts that were composed by the authors. I examined these concepts
in depth in seminary many years later, but as I first read the accounts in the
Gospels, I was far more interested in evaluating their reliability as
eyewitness accounts than their inerrancy as divine communiqués. I knew
from my experience as a detective that the best eyewitness accounts
contained points of disagreement and that this did not automatically
invalidate their reliability.

If it was God’s desire to provide us with an accurate and reliable account
of the life of Jesus, an account we could trust and recognize as consistent
with other forms of eyewitness testimony, God surely accomplished it with
the four gospel accounts. Yes, the accounts are messy. They are filled with
idiosyncrasies and personal perspectives along with common retellings of
familiar stories. There are places where critics can argue that there appear to

be contradictions, and there are places where each account focuses on

something important to the author, while ignoring details of importance to
other writers. But would we expect anything less from true, reliable
eyewitness accounts? I certainly would not, based on what I’ve seen over
the years.

Surely these apparent “contradictions” and curious peculiarities were
present in the early texts and obvious to the earliest of Christians. The
oldest gospel manuscripts we have display this sort of eyewitness
variability, and there is no reason to think the originals were any less
unique or idiosyncratic. The early believers could have destroyed all but
one of the accounts, changed the conflicting details, or simply harmonized
the Gospels. But these diverse accounts were preserved (as they are)
because they are true; they display all the earmarks we would expect in true
eyewitness testimony. If the early church had eliminated the four
eyewitness perspectives and limited us to one tidy version, we would
inevitably have missed some significant detail. If I had tried to clean up the
apparent contradictions between Sylvia’s and Paul’s testimonies, I may
have ignored the clear descriptions of the gun and the shirt. Instead, I took
Sylvia and Paul at their word, learned about their personal perspectives, and
wrote a search warrant for these two items. I recovered both the shirt and
the pistol and eventually used these pieces of evidence to convict the robber

in this case.

NOT ALL MEMORIES ARE CREATED
EQUALLY

Sylvia and Paul were reliable eyewitnesses, even though their individual
perspectives framed their observations of the robbery in unique ways. But
what if many years passed before their testimony was required in court?

Couldn’t the passage of time impact their memories of the event? We’ve all

forgotten details from past events; we understand what it is like to struggle
with a particular memory. Isn’t it possible, reasonable in fact, that Sylvia
and Paul might forget or confuse some important detail of this robbery?
Much has been written in recent years about the “unreliability” of
eyewitness testimony over time, especially as cases that previously hinged
on eyewitness identification have been overturned by new DNA evidence.
In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently pointed to cases such as
these and cited a “troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications.”

As a result, the court issued new rules to make it easier for defendants to

challenge eyewitness evidence in criminal cases.22 Given that some
eyewitness identifications have been overturned by DNA evidence, why
should we trust eyewitness testimony about an event in the past?

In my experience as a cold-case detective, I’ve learned that not all
memories are created equally. Let me give you an example. If you asked me
what I did five years ago on Valentine’s Day (February 14 here in the
United States), I may or may not be able to remember many of the details. I
probably took my wife out for dinner or maybe a short vacation. I could
probably tax my memory and recall the day with some accuracy, but I may
confuse it with other Valentine’s Day memories; after all, I’ve got thirty-
three memories of Valentine’s Day with my wife to sift through (we started
dating in 1979). This day was important to me, so it may stick out in my
memory a bit more than other days in February, but if you ask me for
specific chronological details, I may struggle to recall the particulars from
Valentine’s Day five years ago.

But if you ask me to recall the specifics of Valentine’s Day in 1988, I can
provide you with a much more accurate recollection. This was the day that

Susie and I were married. It definitely sticks out in my mind. I can

remember the details with much more precision because this event was
unequaled in my life and experience. It’s the only time I’ve ever been
married, and the excitement and importance of the event were unparalleled
for me. Valentine’s Day stands out when compared to other days in
February, but this Valentine’s Day was even more special. Not all memories
are equally important or memorable.

When eyewitnesses encounter an event that is similarly unique,
unrepeated, and powerful, they are far more likely to remember it and recall
specific details accurately. Sylvia and Paul had never observed a robbery
prior to the one they observed in the liquor store. It was a unique,
unrepeated event. As such, it stuck out in their minds and memories. This
doesn’t mean that their testimonies ought to be accepted without testing; the
four criteria we’ve already described in this chapter must still be applied to
Sylvia and Paul. We still have to determine if they were present to see the
robbery and have a history of honesty and accuracy. We still need to
determine if their testimonies can be corroborated by additional evidence
and examine their motives to make sure they are not lying. If these criteria

can be met, we have good reason to trust their testimonies as reliable.

THE UNEQUALED EVENTS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT

I remember the day I was matried because it was unique, unrepeated, and
personally important. Now put yourself in the shoes of the apostles as they
witnessed the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. None of these
eyewitnesses had ever seen anyone like Jesus before. He did more than
teach them important lessons; He astonished the eyewitnesses with miracles

that were unique and personally powerful. The apostles experienced only

one Jesus in their lifetime; they observed only one man rise from the dead.
The resurrection was unique, unrepeated, and powerful.

The gospel eyewitnesses observed a singularly powerful and memorable
event and provided us with accounts that are distinctive, idiosyncratic,
personal, and reliable. We simply have to take the time to understand the
perspective and character of each eyewitness and then determine if the
accounts are trustworthy given the four criteria we have described (more on

that in section 2).

¢ Rm A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
(!] CHECKLIST

This may be one of the most important principles we can tuck away in our
callout bag. Unless you’ve worked a lot with eyewitnesses and have
become familiar with the nature of apparent contradictions in eyewitness
accounts, it’s easy to assume that people are lying (or are mistaken) simply
because they don’t agree on every detail or have ignored some facts in favor
of others. If nothing else, we have to remember that an eyewitness account
can be reliable in spite of apparent contradictions. While we might
complain about two accounts that appear to differ in some way, we would
be even more suspicious if there were absolutely no peculiarities or
differences. If this were the case with the Gospels, I bet we would argue
that they were the result of some elaborate collusion. As we examine the
gospel accounts, we need to give the writers the same benefit of the doubt
we would give other eyewitnesses. Human eyewitnesses produce human
eyewitness accounts; they are often idiosyncratic and personal, but reliable

nonetheless.

As a Christian, I recognize that the Bible is God’s Word, but I also
recognize that it was delivered to us through the observations and
recollections of human eyewitnesses. Before I share that the Bible has
something important to offer, I typically take the time to make a case for
why the Bible has something important to offer. It’s important for people to
see that the writers identified themselves as eyewitnesses. They weren’t
writing moral fiction. They were recording what they saw with their own
eyes, heard with their own ears, and touched with their own hands. Let’s
recognize the importance of biblical reliability and help our skeptical
friends recognize the nature of personal, reliable eyewitness testimony.
Many of us have seen or heard something during the course of our lives that
forever changed the way we thought about the world around us. That’s
precisely what happened to the gospel writers. Their observations changed

them forever, and their testimony can change the world we live in.

CASE NOTES

18. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions,
CalCrim Section 105.
19. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions,
CalCrim Section 105.
20. Benjamin Weiser, “In New Jersey, Rules Are Changed on Witness IDs,” New York Times, August

changed-on-witness-ids.html.

a
oy

at
Ze

sy

Ne
Xi

Sess

Chapter 5
Principle #5:

HANG ON EVERY WORD

After an exhausting day of interviews, we were really no closer to having a
suspect in view. We were still looking for a trailhead, a direction that would
lead us to the suspect who killed a beautiful young woman in our city in
1981. We managed to locate all the men and women who had been
suspected of this crime many years ago and arranged interviews with them.
Eight hours into these meetings, I was still undecided about who might be
the most likely candidate for the murder. Then Scott Taylor said something
that caught my attention.

Scott dated the victim about one year prior to the murder. He had been
interviewed back in 1981, along with many other men who dated or knew
her. The original investigators had been unable to single out any one of
these men as a primary suspect. Today, Scott said something that seemed
unusual. It wasn’t anything big. In fact, my partner didn’t catch it at all.

We asked each candidate how he or she “felt” about the victim’s murder.
We were careful to ask the question the same way each time we asked it;
the responses were important to us as we tried to understand the
relationships between the potential suspects and the victim. One responded,
“T’m shocked that someone could have killed her.” Another told us, “It’s

tragic; I hope you guys catch the killer.” A third said, “Although we had

problems, I was devastated when I learned about it.” Scott said something
very different.

“Let me ask you, Scott, how did you feel about her death? Did you have
any feelings about it one way or the other?” I asked him casually, hoping to
gauge his response.

Scott paused for a second, choosing his words. He shrugged his shoulders
slightly and said, “Well, I was sorry to see her dead, you know. We didn’t
always get along, but it’s never good to see anyone die.”

Of all the possible responses that Scott could have offered, this one struck
me as Odd and a bit telling. It may have simply been a figure of speech that
was common to Scott—I would have to interview him more thoroughly to
see if I could provoke a similar response about something else—but it was
interesting that Scott’s first reply to our question was that he was “sorry to
see her dead.” We knew the killer stood over the victim’s body and made
sure she was dead by nudging her. It could reasonably be said that the killer
“saw her dead” prior to leaving the scene. Was Scott inadvertently telling us
something about his involvement in this crime?

It would be another year before we

f ") Forensic would complete our _ investigation.
' Statement Ultimately, we learned a lot more about
Analysis Scott’s relationship with the victim, and

The careful study and analysis of | We eventually determined that he killed
the words (both written and spoken)
provided by a suspect, witness, or

victim. The purpose of Forensic to date her following their breakup. We

Statement Analysis is to determine ;
truthfulness or deception on the part discovered a large amount of

of the person making the statement.

her because he didn’t want anyone else

circumstantial evidence that came

together to make our case. Scott’s

statement about “see[ing] her dead” pointed us in his direction and was
eventually used in court (along with everything else we learned) to convict
him. Was this statement enough, on its own, to make our case? Of course
not. But it was consistent with Scott’s involvement and truly reflected the
way he felt in the moments following the murder.

Scott’s case taught me the value of paying close attention to every word a
suspect might offer. We all choose the words we use. Sometimes we choose
aS a matter of habit. Sometimes we choose words that reflect, either
consciously or subconsciously, the truth about how we feel or the truth

about what really happened. I’ve learned to hang on every word.

THE ART OF FORENSIC STATEMENT
ANALYSIS

In my first years as an investigator, my department sent me to a number of
classes, seminars, and training exercises to improve my skills. One of these
classes was a course in Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA). There I learned
to refine my ability to hear and interpret every word offered by a suspect in
a case. I began to employ FSA techniques almost immediately. I routinely
asked suspects to write down what they did back on the day of the murder,
accounting for their activity from the time they got up in the morning to the
time they went to bed. I provided each suspect a blank piece of lined paper
and a pen. Any alterations in their statement would have to be scratched
out, and as a result, I was able to see what they initially wrote and where
they were uncomfortable with their original choice of words. I would then
examine this statement, asking several important questions. What kinds of
words did the suspect use to describe the victim? Does the suspect ever
inadvertently slip from the present to the past tense, giving away his or her

presence or involvement at the scene of the crime? Does the suspect

compress or expand the description of events in order to hide something or
lie about how something occurred? Does the suspect over- or underidentify
the victim in an effort to seem friendlier or disinterested in the victim? In
essence, I examined every word to see if it provided any clue related to the
suspect’s involvement in the crime.

Let me give you an example. Imagine that we asked a suspect about his
activity last night with his wife (who is now the victim of a murder). In

describing what happened, the man responded:

“T took Amy, my beautiful wife of thirty-one years, out to dinner and a

movie.”

I’ve already learned something about their relationship in just this one
sentence. Notice that the suspect told us his wife’s name, and was
apparently proud enough of her (or their relationship) to mention how long
they had been together. Notice also that the suspect used the possessive
expression “my beautiful wife” when he could easily have described her in

some other way. Imagine, for example, if he had said this:
“T took my wife out to dinner and a movie.”

While he still used a possessive expression (“my wife”) in this response,
he did not describe her as beautiful, and he reserved the information about
her name and the length of their relationship. Maybe he’s a private person
who was uncomfortable with revealing personal details. Maybe he was not
as proud of his wife or wanted to distance himself from her. We’d have to
spend some time with him to learn more. Let’s now imagine that he said

this in response to our questioning:

“T took the wife out to dinner and a movie.”

The suspect dropped the possessive language and described his wife as

“the wife.” Hmm. Why would he do that? Maybe this was just a figure of

speech that he always used in describing anyone he had a relationship with,

whether good or bad. Maybe he was distancing himself from his wife for

some reason. Once again, we’d have to investigate this further. Finally, let’s

imagine that he said something like this:

“T took the old lady out to dinner and a movie.”

<y What Is the

4/ Forensic
Statement Analyst
Trying to Achieve?

Forensic Statement Analysts
carefully examine the words offered
by witnesses and suspects in an
effort to determine the following:

1. Is the writer (or speaker) more
involved in the event than he or she
might like us to believe?

2. Are there relational problems
between the writer (or speaker) and
the victim who is the subject of the
case?

3. What are the hidden difficulties
between the writer (or speaker) and
the victim in the investigation?

4. Was the writer (or speaker)
actually doing what he or she
claimed to be doing at the time of
the crime?

5. Should the writer (or speaker) be
considered as a suspect in this
crime under consideration?

Here, the suspect may simply have
been using a figure of speech that was
common to his region or his culture or
even his family. He might, however,
have been revealing something about his
feelings toward his wife. He did not use
possessive language, he gave us very
little information about her, and he
described her in a less-than-flattering
manner. We would have to look at other
areas of his statement to see if he used
similar language when describing others
or if he reserved these kinds of words for
his wife alone. In any case, his use of
words told us something important.

Clearly, this sort of word examination
is more an interpretive art than a hard
science, but the more we understand the

importance of words, the better we

become at discerning their meanings. Remember, all of us choose the words
we use, and we’ve got lots of words to choose from. Our words eventually

give uS away.

THE FORENSIC GOSPELS

I had been interviewing and studying suspect and eyewitness statements for
many years before I opened my first Bible. I approached the Gospels like I
would any other forensic statement. Every little idiosyncrasy stood out for
me. Every word was important. The small details interested me and forced
me to dig deeper. As an example, the fact that John never mentioned the
proper name of Jesus’s mother (Mary) was curious to me. In his gospel,
John repeatedly referred to Mary as “Jesus’s mother” or “the mother of
Jesus” but never referred to her by name (as did the other gospel writers).
Why would this be the case?

The answer might be found in the nineteenth chapter of John’s gospel
when Jesus entrusted Mary to John at the crucifixion. Jesus told John that
Mary was now his mother, and He told Mary that John was now her son.
John took Mary and cared for her (as he would his own mother) from this
point on. Writing the gospel of John many years later, it just may be that
John was uncomfortable calling his own mother by her formal name. I’m
sure by this time in his life, John was referring to Mary as “my mother.” It
doesn’t surprise me then that John would hesitate to call his adopted mother
by her proper name in the gospel.

The more I read the Gospels, the more interested I was in taking a
forensic approach in an effort to read between the lines of the gospel
writers. My interest reached its peak in the gospel of Mark.

One of my Christian friends told me that Mark’s gospel was really the

eyewitness account of the apostle Peter. The early church seemed to agree.

Papias (ca. AD 70-ca. 163), the ancient bishop of Hierapolis (located in
westem Turkey), claimed that Mark penned his gospel in Rome as Peter’s
scribe. He reported that “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter,

wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he

remembered of the things said or done by Christ.”2 Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-
ca. 202), a student of Ignatius and Polycarp (two students of the apostle
John) and the eventual bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France), repeated

this claim. He wrote, “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also

hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”22 Justin
Martyr (ca. AD 103-—ca. 165), the famous early church apologist from

Rome, also mentioned an early “memoir” of Peter and described it in a way

that is unique to the gospel of Mark.22 In addition, Clement of Alexandria
(ca. AD 150—ca. 215), the historic leader of the church in North Africa,
wrote that those who heard Peter’s teaching “were not satisfied with merely
a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but
with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter

and whose Gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record

of the teaching passed on to them orally.”24 These early church leaders and
students of the apostles (from diverse geographic regions) were “closest to
the action.” They repeatedly and uniformly claimed that Mark’s gospel was
a record of Peter’s eyewitness observations. But could a forensic statement
analysis of the gospel of Mark verify these claims?

As I began to study Mark’s gospel forensically, I observed a number of
interesting anomalies related to Peter. These peculiarities seemed
reasonable if Peter was, in fact, Mark’s source for information. Let me share

some of them with you.

MARK MENTIONED PETER WITH PROMINENCE
Peter is featured frequently in Mark’s gospel. As an example, Mark referred
to Peter twenty-six times in his short account, compared to Matthew, who

mentioned Peter only three additional times in his much longer gospel.

MARK IDENTIFIED PETER WITH THE MOST FAMILIARITY
More importantly, Mark is the only writer who refused to use the term
“Simon Peter” when describing Peter (he used either “Simon” or “Peter”).

This may seem trivial, but it is important. Simon was the most popular male

name in Palestine at the time of Mark’s writing,22 yet Mark made no
attempt to distinguish the apostle Simon from the hundreds of other Simons
known to his readers (John, by comparison, referred to Peter more formally
as “Simon Peter” seventeen times). Mark consistently used the briefest,

most familiar versions of Peter’s name.

MARK USED PETER AS A SET OF “BOOKENDS”
Unlike in other gospel accounts, Peter is the first disciple identified in the
text (Mark 1:16) and the last disciple mentioned in the text (Mark 16:7).

»26 and have

Scholars describe this type of “bookending” as “inclusio
noticed it in other ancient texts where a piece of history is attributed to a
particular eyewitness. In any case, Peter is prominent in Mark’s gospel as

the first and last named disciple.

MARK PAID PETER THE UTMOST RESPECT

Mark also seemed to respect Peter more than any other gospel writer did; he
repeatedly painted Peter in the kindest possible way, even when Peter made
a fool of himself. Matthew’s gospel, for example, describes Jesus walking
on water and Peter’s failed attempt to do the same (Matt. 14:22—33). In

Matthew’s account, Peter began to sink into the sea; Jesus described him as
a doubter and a man “of little faith.” Interestingly, Mark respectfully
omitted Peter’s involvement altogether (Mark 6:45—52). In a similar way,
Luke’s gospel includes a description of the “miraculous catch” of fish in
which Peter was heard to doubt Jesus’s wisdom in trying to catch fish when
Peter had been unsuccessful all day. After catching more fish than his nets
could hold, Peter said, “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!”
(Luke 5:1-11). Mark’s parallel account omits this episode completely
(Mark 1:16—20). While other gospels mention Peter directly as the source of
some embarrassing statement or question, Mark’s gospel omits Peter’s
name specifically and attributes the question or statement to “the disciples”
or some other similarly unnamed member of the group. When Peter made a
rash statement (like saying that Jesus’s death would never occur in Matthew
16:21—23), the most edited and least embarrassing version can be found in
Mark’s account (Mark 8:31-—33). Over and over again, Mark offered a

version of the story that is kinder to Peter.

MARK INCLUDED DETAILS THAT CAN BEST BE ATTRIBUTED TO
PETER

Mark alone included a number of seemingly unimportant details that point
to Peter’s involvement in the shaping of the text. Mark alone told us that
“Simon and his companions” were the ones who went looking for Jesus
when He was praying in a solitary place (Mark 1:35—37). Mark is also the
only gospel to tell us that it was Peter who first drew Jesus’s attention to the
withered fig tree (compare Matt. 21:18-19 with Mark 11:20-21). Mark
alone seemed to be able to identify the specific disciples (including Peter)
who asked Jesus about the timing of the destruction of the temple (compare
Matt. 24:1—3 with Mark 13:1—4). While Matthew told us (in Matt. 4:13—16)

that Jesus returned to Galilee and “came and settled in Capernaum,” Mark
said that Jesus entered Capernaum and that the people heard that He had
“come home” (see Mark 2:1). Mark said this in spite of the fact that Jesus
wasn’t born or raised there. Why would Mark call it “home,” given that
Jesus appears to have stayed there for a very short time and traveled
throughout the region far more than He ever stayed in Capernaum? Mark
alone told us that Capernaum was actually Peter’s hometown (Mark 1:21,
29-31) and that Peter’s mother lived there. Peter could most reasonably

refer to Capernaum as “home.”

MARK USED PETER’S ROUGH OUTLINE

Many scholars have also noticed that Peter’s preaching style (Acts 1:21—22
and Acts 10:37-41, for example) consistently seems to omit details of
Jesus’s private life. When Peter talked about Jesus, he limited his
descriptions to Jesus’s public life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Mark
also followed this rough outline, omitting the birth narrative and other
details of Jesus’s private life that are found in Luke’s and Matthew’s

gospels.

Mark used specific titles to describe Peter, gave him priority in the
narrative, uniquely included information related to Peter, and copied Peter’s
preaching outline when structuring his own gospel. These circumstantial
facts support the claims of the early church fathers who identified Peter as

the source of Mark’s information.

™ Peter's embarrassments
have been omitted

Peter is mentioned

frequently

\u M4 hihild MM
Peter is named LW

by the church fathers

Peter is V4 ,

UE Peter's know
"bookended” Peter Ss know edge

Y, has been included

. JE Peter's outline
wage has been followed
Peter is described

with familiarity
By hanging on every word, we were able to construct a reasonable
circumstantial case for the gospel of Mark as an eyewitness account. When
combined with the testimony of the early church, this evidence becomes

even more powerful.

tA TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
42] CHECKLIST

Keep this principle in mind as you gather the tools in your callout bag and
make your own investigative checklist. By paying close attention to the
words witnesses use, we can learn a lot about the reliability and legitimacy
of their statements. It’s been fashionable recently to question the
authenticity of the Gospels and the claims of the early church fathers related
to their authorship. Were the Gospels intentionally misattributed to the
apostles or their associates? Was there a conspiracy of some sort to make
the Gospels seem authoritative? The forensic internal evidence of language

can help us verify the claims of the early church related to these texts. The

specific words used by the authors can teach us more than you might
previously have thought possible. While it’s been popular in the twenty-first
century to try to cast doubt on what was so certain to those in the first and
second centuries, thoughtful consideration of the words themselves will
verify many of the claims of the early church leaders. We need to do our
best not to trust others (including me) for this careful analysis. Instead, read
the Gospels for yourself and examine every word. We each have the
obligation to do the heavy lifting for ourselves.

I recognize that many of us, as Christians, are hesitant to treat God’s Word
as though it were a suspect or eyewitness statement that needs to be picked
apart forensically. It almost seems to disrespect the holy nature of the text.
I’ve even known brothers and sisters in the faith who were hesitant to write
on the pages of their Bibles out of love and respect for the Word. I certainly
understand this kind of reverence, and I also understand that it’s easy for us
to leave this kind of analysis to experts in the field. But you’|l be amazed at
how rich and deep your faith will become as a result of careful analysis and
study. Some of us don’t think we have enough training or experience to be
able to examine the language of Scripture. But imagine for a minute that
one of your sons wrote you a long letter describing something important to
him. As an interested reader, you would find yourself intuitively measuring
his choice of words. You would inevitably “read between the lines” and find
yourself gleaning far more from the letter than the simple content intended.
We all have enough expertise to begin to question the use of specific words
and develop a richer understanding of the biblical text if only we will
become interested readers of Scripture. There are a number of reliable

experts in the field who can help us sort out the language. We simply need

to raise the bar on our approach to the biblical text. Yes, it’s hard work, but

it’s our duty as ambassadors for Christ and as defenders of the faith.

CASE NOTES

21. Papias, quoted in Eusebius, “Church History,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, eds. Philip
Schaff and Henry Wallace (New York: Cosimo, 2007), 172.

22. Irenaeus, quoted in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to
A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1, The Apostolic Fathers—Justin
Martyr—Irenaeus (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885), 414.

23. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (Wyatt North, 2012), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 2349—
230;

24. Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History,” The Fathers of the Church:
Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History Books 1-5, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America, 1953), 110.

25. Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Palestine 330 Bce — 200 Ce (Philadelphia:
Coronet Books, 2002), 91.

26. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), Kindle edition, Kindle location 1938.

Chapter 6
Principle #6:

SEPARATE ARTIFACTS FROM

EVIDENCE

“Ladies and Gentlemen, the most important piece of forensic evidence the
prosecution has in this case demonstrates the fact that the defendant had
nothing to do with this murder.” The defense attorney paused as his
projector splashed an image of a cigarette butt on the courtroom screen. The
jurors sat quietly with their eyes fixed on the photograph. Several jurors
were taking notes.

I knew that this cigarette butt was going to be a problem for our case
from the moment I first saw it in the collection of evidence. The victim in
this crime had been murdered in his front yard in 1990. The murder
occurred early in the moming, long before sunrise. When officers were
called to the scene, they correctly taped off the area to preserve it for the
criminalists. They were careful to overestimate the possible crime scene,
capturing a large area within the tape, just to be sure that they didn’t miss
anything. While it is always wise to tape off the biggest possible area, it
often results in an excessive collection of items. Some of these items are

related to the crime and can be correctly identified as evidence; some of

these items are simply uninvolved artifacts that get caught up incidentally.
The jury will eventually have to decide which is which.

“The prosecution failed to perform a DNA test on this cigarette butt, even
though they knew it was important to the case. They collected it, after all.
Why would they do that unless they thought it was a piece of evidence?”
The defendant’s attorney paused with his hands on the podium, waiting for
the jury members to turn their eyes back toward him. “As you know, our
team conducted the appropriate tests and learned that there was, in fact,
DNA on the cigarette, and this DNA, although it remains unidentified, does
not belong to my client. The DNA belongs to the true killer. The police
never even examined the DNA and missed the chance to find the real
murderer.”

It was true that we never tested the cigarette for DNA. It was also true
that the partial DNA found by the defendant’s team did not belong to the
defendant and remained unidentified. But it was not true that the cigarette
butt was a piece of evidence. Yes, we collected it because it was inside the
tapeline at the crime scene. But that yellow tape captured both evidence and
artifacts.

The cigarette butt was discovered in a neighbor’s side yard,
approximately fifty feet from the point of the murder. It was at the outmost
edge of the taped area. If the officers had taped an area that was just six
inches smaller in radius, this butt would not even be part of our case. The
defense argued that the suspect was hiding in this location, fifty feet from
the victim’s front door, and must have smoked a cigarette while he was
waiting for the victim to exit his house. They wanted the jury to view the

cigarette butt as evidence of the killer’s identity.

I knew better. The location of the cigarette was directly visible from the
street and the front porch. If the suspect had been standing there, he would
have been exposed and visible to anyone driving by (and to the victim as
soon as he exited the front door). If the killer was relying on the darkness to
hide his presence, the glowing ember of the cigarette and the smell of the
smoke would be a sure giveaway. More importantly, I knew from the
victim’s family that this area was used by his daughter’s friends to smoke
cigarettes while they were visiting and working on their cars in the
driveway. We never tested the cigarette as evidence in this case because we
never viewed it as evidence in the first place. It was simply an artifact at the
scene.

Like all our cases, this investigation was built on circumstantial evidence.
I had no direct evidence, and the defense knew it. The defendant had been
very careful and had gotten away without leaving a trace of his presence at
the scene. While over thirty other pieces of circumstantial evidence pointed
to the defendant as the killer, the only physical item collected at the scene
happened to be an unrelated cigarette butt. The jury would now have to
consider the circumstantial case surrounding the cigarette before it could
consider the circumstantial case surrounding the defendant.

That’s exactly what they did. The jury came back in less than three hours.
They were able to distinguish between the evidence and the artifacts, and
they properly kept the cigarette butt in its place as an artifact of the crime

scene. They convicted the defendant of murder.

/F }The Story of the THE TEXTUAL
= Woman Caughtin ARTIFACTS OF THE
Adultery BIBLE

The famous story of the woman
caught in adultery (known as
Pericope de Adultera) is found today
in John 7:53-8:11. It was not
present in the’ earliest known
manuscripts of John’s gospel,
however, including Papyri 66 (ca.
AD 200), Papyri 75 (early third
century), Codex Sinaiticus (fourth
century), and Codex Vaticanus
(fourth century). It first appears in its
entirety in the fifth century in Codex
Bezae, but there are several other
codices from that time in history that
do not contain the story (e.g.,
Codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi,
Washingtonianus, and Borgianus). It
appears in a different location (after
John 21:25) in many ancient copies
of the text, including a set of ancient
gospels written in Greek known as
“Family 1” that date from the twelfth
to the fifteenth century. The story
appears in the gospel of Luke (after
Luke 24:53) in a group of Greek
manuscripts known as “Family 13”
that date from the eleventh to the
fifteenth century.

Like crime scenes, historical scenes can
be reconstructed with the evidence we
have at our disposal. We have to be
careful, however, to distinguish between
evidence and artifacts. The testimony of
an eyewitness can be properly viewed as
evidence, but anything added to the
account after the fact should be viewed
with caution as a_ possible artifact
(something that exists in the text when it
shouldn’t). The Gospels claim to be
eyewitness accounts, but you may be
surprised to find that there are a few
added textual artifacts nestled in with the
evidential statements. It appears that
scribes, in copying the texts over the
years, added lines to the narrative that

were not there at the time of the original

writing. Let me give you an example.

Most of us are familiar with the biblical story in the gospel of John in

which Jesus was presented with a woman who had been accused of

committing adultery (John 8:1—11). The Jewish men who brought the

woman to Jesus wanted her to be stoned, but Jesus refused to condemn her

and told the men, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to

throw a stone at her.” When the men leave, Jesus tells the woman, “I do not

condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” This story is one of

my favorite passages in all of Scripture. Too bad that it appears to be an
artifact.

While the story may, in fact, be absolutely true, the earliest copies of
John’s gospel recovered over the centuries fail to contain any part of it. The
last verse of chapter 7 and the first eleven verses of chapter 8 are missing in
the oldest manuscripts available to us. The story doesn’t appear until it is
discovered in later copies of John’s gospel, centuries after the life of Jesus
on earth. In fact, some ancient biblical manuscripts place it in a different
location in John’s gospel. Some ancient copies of the Bible even place it in
the gospel of Luke. While there is much about the story that seems
consistent with Jesus’s character and teaching, most scholars do not believe
it was part of John’s original account. It is a biblical artifact, and it is
identified as such in nearly every modern translation of the Bible (where it
is typically noted in the margin or bracketed to separate it from the reliable
account).

Should the existence of this textual artifact concern us? Do late additions
to the biblical record disqualify the New ‘Testament as a reliable
manuscript? How can we call the Bible inerrant or infallible if it contains a
late addition such as this? This passage is not the only textual artifact in the
Bible. There are a number of additional verses that are considered to be
artifacts by scholars and biblical experts. Let’s take a look at a few of them

to determine if their existence should cause us any alarm:

LUKE 22:43—44
“And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it

were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (KJv).

These two verses do not appear in early manuscripts of Luke’s gospel,
and for this reason they have been omitted from some modern Bible
translations (like the RSV). While the KJV does not isolate them as late
additions, other translations (like the NIV, NASB, and NKJV) identify them

as such in footnotes or special brackets.

JOHN 5:4

“For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the
water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was
made whole of whatsoever disease he had” (KJv).

Once again, this verse (along with the last few words of v. 3) does not
appear in the best ancient manuscripts. Several modern translations have
simply removed the verse (e.g., the NIV, RSV, and NRSV), while others
have identified it in the footnotes (e.g., the NKJV and ESV).

1 JOHN 5:7
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJV).

The second half of this verse (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one”) does not appear in any manuscript of the Bible
until the sixteenth century (and it appears in only two manuscripts at this
point in history). It has been omitted from modern translations like the
NASB and NIV and identified with a footnote in the NKJV.

ACTS 15:34
“Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still” (KJV).

The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain this verse.
Modern translations like the NIV, RSV, and NRSV have removed it, while
the NASB, NKJV, and ESV have identified it with brackets or a footnote.

Skeptics have pointed to passages like these in an effort to demonstrate

the unreliability of the biblical text as an eyewitness account. If these lines

are fiction, how many more verses are also false? When I was an atheist,

this was one of my prime complaints about the Bible, and I discovered that

very few Christians were aware of the fact that these additions exist. I

shook the faith of many of my Christian friends by simply demonstrating

that these passages were not in the original biblical text.

SEPARATING THE ARTIFACTS FROM THE

EVIDENCE

a. Evidence and
Artifacts

Judges try to help jurors understand
the difference between evidence
and unrelated artifacts by instructing
them to disregard anything other
than what was actually presented as
part of the case:

“You must decide what the facts are
in this case. You must use only the
evidence that was presented in this
courtroom [or during a jury view].
‘Evidence’ is the sworn testimony of
witnesses, the exhibits admitted into
evidence, and anything else | tell
you to consider as evidence....

“You must disregard anything you
see or hear when the court is not in
session, even if it is done or said by
one of the parties or witnesses”
(Section 104, Judicial Council of
California Criminal Jury Instructions,
2006).

that I

understood how to evaluate the existence

It wasn’t until years later
of these late entries. I eventually learned
that every crime scene presents its own
set of unique questions and difficulties.
Every scene contains important evidence
that will guide us to the truth while also
containing unrelated artifacts that will
cause some uncertainty. I’ve never
encountered a crime scene that was free
of artifacts. In spite of these unrelated
items, we, as detectives, were able to
evaluate the case and determine what
belonged to the crime and what did not.
Yes, there were always a number of
questions that needed to be answered.
But our

concerns were eventually

resolved when we separated the artifacts from the evidence.

Doing this, of course, was sometimes quite difficult. Over the years, I’ve
developed a number of strategies that have helped me to assess what is
important in a crime scene and what is not. These principles can also be

used to evaluate the textual artifacts that exist in the biblical accounts.

IDENTIFY THE LATE ADDITIONS

Responding officers typically tape off crime scenes immediately in
preparation for the criminalists. The criminalists then photograph
everything and document the scene thoroughly. Years later, if an item of
evidence is discovered that was not present in the original photographs, we
have good reason to identify it as a late addition to the case. Once we are
certain that something is a late addition, we can simply ignore it as we

assess the true evidence.

RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES IN CHARACTER

But what if an item was at the scene from the very beginning? How can we
determine if it is important to the case? There are some things that we
recognize as unrelated from the very first moment we arrive. I’ve
investigated many cases in which paramedics reached the scene even before
the police. They made a valiant effort to save the dying victim prior to the
arrival of the first responding officers. By the time the police got there, the
crime scene was littered with the paraphernalia from the paramedic team.
Bandage packaging, tubing, syringes, and a variety of other obvious
medical items were now part of the scene and were photographed by the
criminalists before my arrival at the location. These items became a part of
the case but were quickly and easily recognized as artifacts. They stood out

like a sore thumb; they were evidence of the rescue effort, not the crime.

LOOK FOR AN EXPLANATION

Many items at the scene may be explained by some unrelated cause that
accounts for their presence and eliminates them as evidence. I once had a
case in which a shoe print was photographed outside the victim’s house. We
initially thought it might belong to the killer until we matched it to the
landlord, who first discovered the victim when he entered the residence to
check on her. Once we had an explanation for the existence of the print, we

recognized it as an artifact.

SEE WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU INCLUDE IT

There have been times when it was impossible for me to determine whether
an item was a piece of evidence or simply an artifact of the scene. When
this happens, I will sometimes create a hypothetical case that includes the
item as evidence, just to see if its inclusion would change the outcome of
the case. I once had a crime scene in which a pencil was recovered on the
floor next to the victim. We weren’t sure if it was part of the crime or if it
belonged to the victim or the suspect. Forensic examinations provided
nothing in the way of DNA or fingerprints. To be safe, I decided to think of
it as evidence. I quickly realized that the pencil had no impact on the case;
when I later assembled the evidence that pointed to a specific suspect, the
presence of the pencil did nothing to either improve or weaken my case.
There are times when we can be comfortable ignoring an item because it

has no impact on the outcome, even if it were to be included.

RELY ON WHAT YOU KNOW
Some items in a crime scene present difficulties because they seem to
contradict the larger group of confirmed items of evidence. Imagine that we

are working a homicide and have recovered forty-two pieces of evidence

that identify a man named Ben Rogers as the killer. Many of these pieces of
evidence came from the crime scene, including his DNA on the victim,
several of Ben’s personal items left behind at the scene, and his fingerprints
on the murder weapon. In addition to this, imagine that we have an
eyewitness who saw him running from the victim’s home, covered in blood.
Now imagine that we also recovered a nametag belonging to Scotty
Nichols, a man who worked with the victim. This nametag was sitting on a
nightstand about eight feet from the victim’s body. When we question
Scotty about the nametag, he tells us that he lost the item a day before the
murder occurred, and he offers us a verifiable alibi for the day of the crime.
He has no idea why his nametag is in the victim’s home. What are we to do
with this item? In cases like this we have to ask ourselves if the presence of
the nametag impacts what we do know from the other evidence at the scene.
When we have overwhelming evidence pointing in a particular direction,
we may have to get comfortable with the fact that there is some ambiguity

related to other items at the scene.

“\, Reasons Why

¥’” Scribes
Sometimes Changed
the Text

It's clear that scribes occasionally
changed the biblical manuscripts
when copying them. The vast
majority of these changes were
completely unintentional (simple
misspellings or grammatical errors).
Some, however, were intentional:

1. Some intentional alterations were
performed in an effort to harmonize
passages that describe the same

SO, CAN WE TRUST
THE BIBLICAL
EVIDENCE?

We can apply these principles as we

examine the New ‘Testament and

evaluate questionable passages _ to
determine if they are evidence or
artifacts. Luckily, we have

“photographs” of the early crime scene
to help us. We have hundreds of early,

ancient manuscripts that can give us a

event in two separate gospels snapshot of what the text looked like
(parallel passages).

2. Some intentional alterations were | Defore anyone added anything to the

done to add detail known to the
scribe but not clearly described by
the apostolic author. been exposed in this way, we can simply

3. Some intentional alterations were
made to clarify a passage of
Scripture based on what a scribe and focus on the remainder as evidence.
thought the passage meant (the
scribes were not always correct in

their interpretations). suspicious even before we find that they

Narrative. Once these late additions have

choose to ignore the passages as artifacts

Some biblical passages appear

were missing in the earliest copies.
These passages “stand out” because they seem to possess a different
character (like the paramedic paraphernalia at our murder scene). Textual
critics examined the story of the adulterous woman, for example, and
recognized that the Greek words used in the narrative are far more similar
to Luke’s use of language than they are to John’s. The passage seemed
foreign to the gospel of John, even before the discovery that it was absent
prior to the fifth century.

Next, we can look for reasonable explanations that might account for the
addition of these passages (just as we did with the landlord’s shoe print).
Let’s take a look at the four examples I’ve given from the New Testament
and think through some of the reasonable explanations. Each addition to the
text appears to be an effort on the part of a scribe to make something clear,
to emphasize a point, or to add some detail known to the scribe but omitted
by the apostle. In Luke 22:43—44, Jesus’s agony is emphasized by the
unusual description of blood in His sweat. This may simply have been an
effort to make the agony more vivid, or perhaps the scribe was borrowing
from a literary style of the time to make the account more robust. In John

5:4, the detail related to the pool at Bethesda may simply have been added

to explain John 5:7, a legitimate verse that talks about the stirring of the
water without additional explanation. In 1 John 5:7, the scribe may have
succumbed to the strong temptation to take the one verse that most closely
describes the Trinity and add a line that would make the doctrine
irrefutable. While there are many verses that circumstantially point to the
triune nature of God, this late insertion (if it were true) would remove all
doubt. In Acts 15:34, the scribe added a detail about Silas staying in
Antioch. This fact may have been known to the scribe (who may have been
native to the area). As a result, he may have added it to the text to fill ina
detail that would also be known to local readers of the account.

Some biblical passages, however, are more difficult to assess as artifacts.
They may appear in some ancient texts, but not in others from the same
period of time. When this is the case, we can choose to hypothetically
include the passage as though it were reliable evidence (like the pencil in
our murder scene) to see what effect it has on the larger case. If we chose,
for example, to include the story of the adulterous woman as a reliable part
of the biblical narrative, would it change what we know about any of the
central claims of the Bible? No, it wouldn’t. The story seems to be
consistent with what we know about Jesus’s character and teaching. We can
imagine Jesus doing something like this, given what we know about Him
from other passages. The story of the adulterous woman does not change
our final understanding of the teaching of Scripture if it were to be
included. In the vast majority of textual additions that have been made to
the Bible over the centuries, the changes have been so insignificant as to
have very little effect on the content of the narrative and virtually no impact

on the important doctrinal claims of Christianity.

Finally, we have to learn to be comfortable with some ambiguity. No
scene is free of artifacts, and the biblical crime scene is no different. There
may be a few passages of Scripture that seem out of place or difficult to
understand (like Scotty Nichols’s nametag). At times like these, we have to
ask ourselves if the reliable testimony of the biblical narrative is sufficient
to accommodate an unexplained artifact. If we find that the biblical text
(with the artifacts removed) makes a case that is strong and clear (we’ll
discuss this more is the second section of this book), we can allow

ourselves the minor discomfort of a few unanswered questions.

PIECING TOGETHER THE PUZZLE

Let me give you an illustration to help you think about the relationship
between evidence and artifacts. Imagine that tomorrow you open a drawer
in your family room and empty its contents onto the table. You find that it
contains all kinds of junk you haven’t seen in quite some time, including
keys and paper clips, batteries and coins. You also discover that it contains a
number of puzzle pieces. In your curiosity about the puzzle pieces, you
begin to sift through the contents of the drawer so you can assemble them.
In order to bring together the puzzle, you’re going to have to sort the related
pieces from the items that are clearly not part of the puzzle. Some of these
are obvious by their very nature. You immediately know that batteries and
coins, like the paramedic paraphernalia, are not going to fit in the puzzle.
As a result, you push these aside and start puzzling. But it turns out that
there are two additional puzzle pieces in the drawer that simply don’t fit the
others. As you begin to assemble the image, you can see that these puzzle
pieces don’t fit this particular puzzle; they seem to belong somewhere else.
Now let me ask you a few questions. Does the mere presence of the non-

puzzle pieces in the drawer invalidate the reliability of the puzzle pieces?

No, the non-puzzle pieces can be quickly and easily identified and set aside.
Does the presence of the non-puzzle pieces change the resulting image that
has been pieced together? No, these additional “artifacts” are completely
unrelated to the image on the puzzle. How about the two extra puzzle pieces
that don’t seem to match the rest? Does their presence in the drawer make
the other puzzle pieces unreliable? No, the vast majority of pieces fit
together nicely and demonstrate a coherent relationship to one another (in
spite of the fact that there are two additional pieces that don’t seem to fit).
What if we accepted the two additional pieces as part of the puzzle and tried
to force them in? Would they significantly change the final image? No,
even if we were to accept these two pieces as part of the larger group and
found a way to insert them into the puzzle, the image would still be obvious

to us.

Crime scenes are a lot like this drawer full of items. There are pieces at
the scene that are evidence of the crime in question, and there are extra
artifacts that have nothing to do with the crime. When we successfully

separate the artifacts from the evidence, we can determine what happened at

the scene. The mere presence of the artifacts is not an insurmountable
obstacle for us. The biblical text is also much like the drawer full of items.
There are passages in the text that are evidence of the life of Jesus, and
there are extratextual artifacts that must be separated. When we successfully
separate the textual artifacts from the biblical evidence, we can determine
what happened over two thousand years ago. The mere presence of the

textual artifacts is not an insurmountable obstacle for us.

As you form your own checklist of evidential principles, be sure to include
this important approach to artifacts. When I was an atheist, I believed the
existence of scribal alterations in the Bible invalidated the evidential value
of the text altogether. I now understand that this is not the case. Every crime
scene contains artifacts; if I refused to accept any explanation of the truth
simply because an artifact was present along with the reliable evidence, I
could never convict anyone of a crime. All ancient documents also contain
textual artifacts. If we reject the entirety of Scripture simply because it
contains artifacts of one kind or another, we had better be ready to reject the
ancient writings of Plato, Herodotus, Euripides, Aristotle, and Homer as
well. The manuscripts for these texts are far less numerous, and they are far
less reliable. If we apply the same standard of perfection that some would
demand of the Bible to other ancient histories, we’re going to have to reject
everything we thought we knew about the ancient past. More importantly,
it’s vital to see that we do actually have a methodology that allows us to
uncover the artifacts and separate them from the original text. The art of

textual criticism allows us to compare manuscripts to determine what

belongs and what does not. The same process that revealed to me (as a
skeptic) the passages that couldnt be trusted also revealed to me (as a
believer) the passages that can be trusted. Textual criticism allows us to
determine the nature of the original texts as we eliminate the textual
artifacts. This should give us more confidence in what we have, not less.

I have many Christian friends who are reluctant to admit that the Bible
contains any textual artifacts because they have always defended the Bible
as either inerrant (containing no errors) or infallible (incapable of
containing errors). But the presence of textual artifacts says nothing about
the original text, and it’s this original autograph that we have in view when
we talk about inerrancy and infallibility in the first place. Christianity
acknowledges that God used humans to deliver His truth to His people. In
the Old Testament, God used prophets to speak to the nation of Israel. In the
New Testament, God used the apostolic eyewitnesses to testify of His Son.
Christianity recognizes the inerrancy of the original documents these
eyewitnesses provided, even though they were filled with idiosyncrasies
and personal perspectives (as we described previously). Humans were also
involved in the transmission of these eyewitness accounts. Like the authors,
the scribes had personal perspectives and human idiosyncrasies that may
have impacted the way they copied the manuscripts. While they may have
occasionally altered very minute portions of the text, we possess enough
comparative copies of the ancient documents to identify these alterations
and remove them from the reliable accounts. The textual artifacts testify to
the gritty realism of the evidential account contained in the Bible. Like
other real collections of evidence, there are artifacts embedded within the
reliable evidence. Like other crime scenes, these artifacts need not hinder

our ability to determine (and defend) the truth.

Principle #7:

RESIST CONSPIRACY THEORIES

“Charlie, your roommate already told us where to find the green plaid shirt

you were wearing last night.” Charlie sat with his head down and his hands

on his thighs. His body language communicated his continuing resistance to

my questioning. This last statement, however, caused the first small reaction

I had seen all afternoon. Charlie finally lifted his head and looked me in the

eyes. “You and I both know I’m gonna find the victim’s blood on that

shirt,” I said. Charlie sat there quietly. I could tell that he believed my lie

about his roommate.

Some Popular
Conspiracy
Theories

Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone
when he killed President Kennedy.
The US government was involved in
the 9/11 disaster.

The 1969 Apollo moon landing was
fabricated.

A UFO crashed in Roswell, New
Mexico.

Eighteen hours earlier, Charlie and his
roommate, Vic, attempted to rob Dennis
Watkins as he was walking home from
his girlfriend’s house. A simple street
robbery turned into a homicide when
Dennis decided he was bigger than
Charlie and struggled with him for his
knife. Charlie stabbed Dennis only once,
but the resulting chest wound was fatal.
The robbery took place late at night in

an alley to the rear of a fast-food

restaurant in our town. There were no witnesses, and no one else was on the

street at the time of the robbery, but Charlie was unknowingly recorded by a
surveillance camera located on a bank across the alley. While the camera
was too far away to identify the killer facially, it did record the unusual
green plaid shirt worn by one of the two attackers and captured an image of
their general height and build. Several hours later (through a series of
investigative efforts), we had Charlie and Vic in custody, but we had little
evidence to corroborate their involvement. We needed a “cop-out” if we
hoped to file the case with the district attorney.

We separated Charlie and Vic as soon as we arrested them; Vic was in a
second interview room down the hall. I had not yet interviewed him; I lied
to Charlie about the conversation. Vic didn’t tell me where to find the plaid
shirt. Charlie just happened to better match the physical build of the
primary suspect I saw on the video, so I took a stab at him as the suspect
who wore the shirt. I could tell I was right by Charlie’s reaction. He was
fidgeting in his chair and turned his gaze to the floor again. I stayed silent
and let my statement hang in the air. Charlie finally looked up.

“Vic’s lying about that. He’s the one who gave me that shirt for my
birthday, but he wears it more than I do.” Charlie folded his arms again and
leaned backward, trying to increase the distance between the two of us.

That was all I needed really—just another small piece of information. I
left Charlie for a moment and entered the room with Vic. I pulled a chair up
to the table that separated us, introduced myself, and got down to business.

“Vic, I just got done talking to Charlie. Murder is a serious crime, and he
told me that you were the one who stabbed this guy. He told me about the
green plaid shirt. He said that you gave that shirt to him for his birthday but

you wear it more than he does. He told us where to find it. He said we’ll

find the victim’s blood on the shirt and he’s willing to testify against you,
bud.”

Within fifteen minutes, Vic told us all about the crime and confirmed
what we had seen on the video. He provided many details about their prior
plan to commit the robbery, and he confirmed his secondary involvement in
the attack. He also told us that Charlie was the man who stabbed Dennis,
and he provided us with the location of the knife. Vic believed everything I
said about Charlie. I had just enough true information to make my lies
sound believable; the combination was powerful enough to convince Vic

that Charlie had “ratted him out.” Vic was now willing to return the favor.

RULES FOR GOOD CONSPIRACIES

In my experience as a detective, I have investigated many conspiracies and
multiple-suspect crimes. While successful conspiracies are the popular
subject of many movies and novels, I’ve come to learn that they are (in
reality) very difficult to pull off. Successful conspiracies share a number of

common characteristics:

A SMALL NUMBER OF
CONSPIRATORS

The smaller the number of conspirators,

©, Conspiracies

To prove that a defendant is part of
a felonious conspiracy, prosecutors

in the state of California must prove the more likely the conspiracy will be a
that

“1. The defendant intended to agree

and did agree with [one or more of] are difficult to maintain, and the fewer
(the other defendant{[s]) ... to commit
... alleged crime[s]; the number of people who have to

2. At the time of the agreement, the continue the lie, the better.
defendant and [one or more of] the

other alleged member(s] of the
conspiracy intended that one or

success. This is easy to understand; lies

THOROUGH AND IMMEDIATE
COMMUNICATION

more of them would commit ...
alleged crime[s];

3. (One of the) defendant[s] ... [or all
of them] committed [at least one of]
the alleged overt act(s) to
accomplish the alleged crime”
(Section 415, Judicial Council of

This is key. When conspirators are
unable to determine if their partners in
crime have already given up the truth,
they are far more likely to say something

in an effort to save themselves from

California Criminal Jury Instructions,

2006).

punishment. Without adequate and

immediate communication,
coconspirators simply cannot separate lies from the truth; they are easily

deceived by investigators who can pit one conspirator against another.

A SHORT TIME SPAN

Lies are hard enough to tell once; they are even more difficult to repeat
consistently over a long period of time. For this reason, the shorter the
conspiracy, the better. The ideal conspiracy would involve only two
conspirators, and one of the conspirators would kill the other right after the

crime. That’s a conspiracy that would be awfully hard to break!

SIGNIFICANT RELATIONAL CONNECTIONS

When all the coconspirators are connected relationally in deep and
meaningful ways, it’s much harder to convince one of them to “give up” the
other. When all the conspirators are family members, for example, this task
is nearly impossible. The greater the relational bond between all the

conspirators, the greater the possibility of success.

LITTLE OR NO PRESSURE

Few suspects confess to the truth until they recognize the jeopardy of
failing to do so. Unless pressured to confess, conspirators will continue
lying. Pressure does not have to be physical in nature. When suspects fear

incarceration or condemnation from their peers, they often respond in an

effort to save face or save their own skin. This is multiplied as the number
of coconspirators increases. The greater the pressure on coconspirators, the

more likely the conspiracy is to fail.

Charlie and Vic’s conspiracy was difficult to maintain for several reasons.
While there were only two conspirators, they were unable to communicate
with one another. Once they were separated, they were unable to monitor
what the other was saying to the police. We were, therefore, able to deceive
each of them without detection. In addition to this, Charlie and Vic were
only roommates. The more we talked to them, the more obvious it was they
were willing to give each other up to avoid punishment. Neither Charlie nor
Vic had ever been to state prison, but both had served time in the county jail
system. They’d heard stories from other inmates about the nature of
California prisons, and the fear of serving time there was a significant
motivation for them to cooperate. Conspiracies are most successful when all
of the characteristics I’ve described are present. In this case, several key

conditions were missing.

THE CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY

When I was an atheist, I recognized that the most significant claim of the
alleged apostolic eyewitnesses was their claim related to the resurrection.
This was the big one; larger than any other alleged miracle ever performed
by Jesus and the proof that the apostles seemed to trot out every time they
talked about Jesus. I always assumed it was a lie. Maybe it was just my
skeptical nature or my prior experience with people on the job. I understand
the capacity people have to lie when it serves their purpose. In my view, the
apostles were no different. In an effort to promote their cause and

strengthen their own position within their religious community, I believed

these twelve men concocted, executed, and maintained the most elaborate
and influential conspiracy of all time. But as I learned more about the
nature of conspiracies and had the opportunity to investigate and break
several conspiracy cases, I started to doubt the reasonable nature of the
alleged “Christian conspiracy.”

The apostles faced far greater challenges than did Charlie and Vic, two
thousand years later. The number of conspirators required to successfully
accomplish the Christian conspiracy would have been staggering. The book
of Acts tells us that there were as many as 120 eyewitnesses in the upper
room following Jesus’s ascension (Acts 1:15). Let’s assume for a minute
that this number is a gross exaggeration; let’s work with a much smaller
number to illustrate our point. Let’s limit our discussion to the twelve
apostles (adding Matthias as Judas’s replacement). This number is already
prohibitively large from a conspiratorial perspective, because none of the

other characteristics of successful conspiracies existed for the twelve

a 7 Sop oo OO

apostles.
. “y Yy “i
Peter fn ite pe Mie a he |
Crucified 4 “,, Weg Ve. 2 q
upside 0 WY Wii. - we SO Dy 4 ey VA,
in Kome Z “a a +g yt! Y ae 4,
Vy Lay 4
@ ullly % YON
Mt yy YW
, i 1 Ang ie
y) Ariplllf " My
; QD V' (OY yy, Ut Wa, Thomas
James a uw if Loy Ve lf Killed by an
Killed b — 4 as, “ai x angry mob
Mea by UY Up Be) Hi Y
the sword in i uf p yy yl SW g fr ye . {in Mylapore
Jerusalem « be eat Ys, Y

The apostles had little or no effective way to communicate with one
another in a quick or thorough manner. Following their dispersion from
Jerusalem, the twelve disciples were scattered across the Roman Empire
and, according to the most ancient accounts, were ultimately interrogated
and martyred far from one another. Methods of communication in the first
century were painfully slow, and unlike Charlie and Vic, the apostles were
separated by far more than a hallway. From Peter in Rome, to James in
Jerusalem, to Thomas in Mylapore, the apostles appear to have been
ultimately interrogated in locations that prevented them from
communicating with one another in a timely manner. They had no idea if
any of their coconspirators had already “given up the lie” and saved
themselves by simply confessing that Jesus was never resurrected. While
skeptics sometimes claim that these recorded locations of martyrdom are
unreliable because they are part of a biased Christian account, there isn’t a
single non-Christian record that contradicts the claims of martyrdom
offered by the local communities and historians.

In addition, the apostles would have been required to protect their
conspiratorial lies for an incredibly long time. The apostle John appears to
have lived the longest, surviving nearly sixty years after the resurrection.
Charlie and Vic couldn’t keep their conspiracy alive for thirty-six hours; the
apostles allegedly kept theirs intact for many decades.

To make matters worse, many of them were complete strangers to one
another prior to their time together as disciples of Jesus. Some were indeed
brothers, but many were added over the course of Jesus’s early ministry and
came from diverse backgrounds, communities, and families. While there
were certainly pairs of family members in the group of apostolic

eyewitnesses, many had no relationship to each other at all. Philip,

Bartholomew, Thomas, Simon the Canaanite, and Matthias had no family
relationship to any of the other apostles. Whatever the relational connection
between these men, the short years they spent together would quickly pale
in comparison to the decades they would spend apart from one another prior
to the time of their final interrogations. At some point, the bonds of
friendship and community would be tested if their individual lives were
placed in jeopardy.

Successful conspiracies are unpressured conspiracies. The apostles, on
the other hand, were aggressively persecuted as they were scattered from
Italy to India. According to the records and accounts of the local
communities, each of them suffered unimaginable physical duress and died
a martyr’s death. Ancient writers recorded that Peter was crucified upside
down in Rome, James was killed with the sword in Jerusalem, and Thomas
was murdered by a mob in Mylapore. Each story of martyrdom is more
gruesome than the prior as we examine the list of apostolic deaths. This
pressure was far greater than the fear of state prison faced by Charlie and
Vic, yet none of the Twelve recanted their claims related to the resurrection.
Not one.

I can’t imagine a less favorable set of

The Martyrdom circumstances for a _ successful
| Traditions of the conspiracy than those that the twelve
Apostles apostles faced. Multiply the problem by

Andrew was crucified in Patras, ten to account for the 120 disciples in
CIReee: the upper room (Acts 1:15), or by forty
Bartholomew (aka Nathanael) was ;

flayed to death with a whip in to account for the five hundred
ae eyewitnesses described by Paul (1 Cor.
James the Just was thrown from the

temple and then beaten to death in 15:6), and the odds seem even more

Jerusalem.

James the Greater was beheaded in
Jerusalem.

John died in exile on the island of

prohibitive. None of these eyewitnesses

ever recanted, none was ever trotted out

Patmos. by the enemies of Christianity in an

Luke was hanged in Greece.

ere Was uraccerteynerseantite effort to expose the Christian “lie.

died in Alexandria, Egypt.

Don’t get me wrong, successful

Matthew was killed by a sword in

Ethiopia. conspiracies occur every day. But they

typically involve a small number of

Matthias was stoned and_ then

Beneaded Ih Jousaleln: incredibly close-knit participants who

Peter was crucified upside down in

Rome. are in constant contact with one another

Philip was crucified in Phrygia. for a very short period of time without

Thomas was stabbed to death with

Spear iuilndia: any outside pressure. That wasn’t the

case for the disciples. These men and
women either were involved in the greatest conspiracy of all time or were
simply eyewitnesses who were telling the truth. The more I learned about
conspiracies, the more the latter seemed to be the most reasonable

conclusion.

MARTYRDOM ISN’T ALWAYS A PROOF

Before I move on from this discussion of conspiracies, I want to address an
issue that is sometimes raised related to the relationship between
martyrdom and truth. History is filled with examples of men and women
who were committed to their religious views and were willing to die a
martyr’s death for what they believed. The hijackers who flew the planes
into the Twin Towers, for example, considered themselves to be religious
martyrs. Does this martyrdom testify to the truth of their beliefs in a manner
similar to the martyrdom of the twelve apostles? No, there is an important
distinction that needs to be made here. You and I might die for what we

believe today, trusting in the testimony of those who were witnesses

thousands of years ago. We were not there to see Jesus for ourselves, but we
may believe that we have good reason to accept their testimony. Our
martyrdom would therefore be a demonstration of this trust, rather than a
confirmation of the truth.

The original eyewitnesses, however, were in a very different position.
They knew firsthand if their claims were true or not. They didn’t trust
someone else for their testimony; they were making a firsthand assertion.
The martyrdom of these original eyewitnesses is in a completely different
category from the martyrdom of those who might follow them. If their
claims were a lie, they would know it personally, unlike those who were
martyred in the centuries that followed. While it’s reasonable to believe that
you and I might die for what we mistakenly thought was true, it’s
unreasonable to believe that these men died for what they definitely knew to

be untrue.

=m A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
4] CHECKLIST

A healthy skepticism toward conspiracy theories is an important tool to
include in our callout bag. We need to hesitate before we wholeheartedly

embrace conspiratorial claims related to the apostles. Movies like The God

Who Wasn't There22 and Zeitgeist, the Movie28 have popularized the notion
that Christianity is simply a retelling of prior mythologies. In essence, these
movies argue that a group of conspirators assembled the fictional story of
Jesus from a number of preexisting mythologies (borrowing a little here and
a little there) and perpetuated the elaborate lie until they died. While some

of my skeptical friends may still reject the claims of Christianity, I hope I

can at least help them recognize that successful, large-scale conspiracies are
rare and that the notion of a “Christian conspiracy” is simply unreasonable.
As Christians, we need to recognize that our culture is fascinated by
conspiracy theories. Many of our friends and family members are quick to
jump to elaborate conspiratorial possibilities even when there are simpler
explanations on the table. Given what I now know about the difficult nature
of successful conspiracies, I can help the skeptics in my world as they
assess the claims of the apostles. You can too. We all need to take the time
to understand the elements of successful conspiracies so we can
communicate them to others. But in order to be consistent in our beliefs and
explanations, we’re also going to need to resist the temptation to see a
conspiracy around every comer of current events. If it is unreasonable for
the resurrection to be the product of a conspiracy, it is just as unreasonable
that other events requiring a large number of conspirators and the perfect set
of conditions would be the result of a conspiracy. Let’s be careful not to
unreasonably embrace conspiracy theories related to secular issues, while
simultaneously trying to make a case against the alleged conspiracy of the
apostles. If we are consistent in our understanding and rejection of
unreasonable conspiratorial explanations, we’ll successfully communicate

the truth of the resurrection to a skeptical world.

CASE NOTES

27. The God Who Wasn't There, directed by Brian Flemming (Hollywood: Beyond Belief Media,
2005).
28. Zeitgeist, the Movie, directed by Peter Joseph (GMP LLC, 2007).

ZA
oy

Hh
a

sy

=
“

Sree

Chapter 8
Principle #8:

RESPECT THE “CHAIN OF CUSTODY”

“Detective Wallace, isn’t it true that ...”

Something told me the question I was about to hear was intended to
criticize my cold-case investigation. One of the state’s most capable defense
attorneys stood behind the podium, glaring at me with a dramatic
expression of suspicion as he began his sixth day of questioning. By now I
was familiar with the approach he was taking; his questions were more
rhetorical than probative. He was trying to make a point, and he was doing
his best to vilify the original detectives in the process. When a defense
attorney begins a question in this way, odds are good that the next thing he
says will be less than complimentary.

“Detective Wallace, isn’t it true that there isn’t a single crime-scene
photograph of the alleged button you say was left at the murder scene in
1985?” He stood a little straighter and adjusted the waist of his pants,
revealing the suspenders he wore underneath his suit jacket. He was
sporting the finest suit I had seen in a courtroom in quite some time, and he
occasionally strutted back and forth behind the podium to model it for the
jury.

“Sir, I do believe there was one photograph taken by the original crime-
scene investigators,” I responded. While this was true, I knew my response

would not satisfy him; I could see where this was headed.

The button was a key piece of evidence that pointed to the defendant. It

was torn from his shirt during the murder and was discovered at the scene.

Detectives later executed a search warrant and retrieved a shirt in the

defendant’s apartment that was missing a button. Forensic comparisons

made it clear that the button at the crime scene matched the defendant’s

shirt. But we had a problem.

{") Evidence
" — Tampering

Defense attorneys sometimes
insinuate that an officer has planted
evidence in a case. In order to prove
such an accusation, however, it
must be demonstrated that

“(1) The [officer] willfully and
intentionally ... changed, planted,
placed, made, hid, or moved ... [a
piece of evidence]. (2) The [officer]
knew (he/she) was ... changing,
planting, placing, making, hiding, or
moving ... [a piece of evidence], and
(3) When the [officer] ... changed,

planted, placed, made, hid, or
moved ... [the piece of evidence],
(he/she) intended that (his/her)

action would result in (Someone
being charged with a crime [or] [the
piece of evidence] being wrongfully
produced as genuine or true ina...
court proceeding” (Section 2630,
Judicial Council of California
Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).

The CSI officers were using a 35mm
camera in 1985, and they were limited
by their technology. They would
typically use rolls of film that had
twelve, twenty-four, or _ thirty-six
exposures each. As a result, I had fewer
photographs than I would have liked
(today our criminalists take hundreds of
digital photographs with cameras that
can store thousands of images). To make
matters worse, photographers in 1985
had no way to preview the images they
shot. They had to wait until the
photographs were developed to know if
they had images that were clear and
focused. As it turned out, one of the
most important photographs taken in this
crime scene was the photograph taken of

the button, and it was one of three

photographs that were out of focus. The CSI officers shot only forty-eight

photographs in total, and none of them displayed a clear image of the
button.

“Come now, Detective Wallace, you know as well as I do that there isn’t
a single image of the button at the crime scene. You continue to point to
these blurry images and expect the jury to believe that they contain your
most important piece of evidence?” He had a good point. We didn’t have a
clear image of the button from the crime-scene photographs. In spite of this,
we knew with certainty that the button was part of the murder scene. The
first responding officers reported seeing it, and the detectives who arrived
later also documented the button in their notes. CSI officers collected the
button and booked it into evidence later in the day, along with other items
from the scene and a number of items collected in the search warrant.

“Tsn’t it true that the first time this button was mentioned in a formal
police report was in the property report completed by CSI officers after the
search warrant was served?”

His implication was clear. If the button was not photographed at the
scene, there was no way to be certain that officers didn’t collect it at the
search warrant, pull it from the defendant’s shirt, and later claim that it first
appeared at the murder scene. The attorney was carefully making the case
that detectives had lied about the button in an effort to tamper with the
evidence and frame his client.

I was concemed that the jury might accept this devious explanation of the
button, but my fears were misplaced. After convicting the defendant, the
jurors later told us that they believed the testimony of the responding patrol
officers, CSI officers, and detectives who mentioned the button in their
notes. The jury was unwilling to believe that a conspiracy of this size

(involving seven different officers from three divisions) came together to

frame the defendant. They convicted him, in spite of the fact that we didn’t

have a clear image of the button at the scene.

ESTABLISHING A “CHAIN OF CUSTODY”

Detectives quickly learn the importance of documenting and tracking key
pieces of evidence. If the evidence isn’t carefully handled, a number of
questions will plague the case as it is presented to a jury. Was a particular
piece of evidence truly discovered at the scene? How do we know it was
actually there? How do we know that an officer didn’t “plant” it there?
These kinds of questions can be avoided if we respect and establish the
“chain of custody.” Every crime scene contains important pieces of
evidence, and these items of evidence must eventually be delivered to a jury
for consideration when the case is brought to trial. Our button, for example,
had to find its way from the crime scene to the courtroom. Along the way, it
Spent years sitting in our police property room and was also handled by a
number of specialists until I eventually checked it out from property and

transported it to court.

ee,
4
4,
Yj
Z
y UGH
Y

SY
Pt

ALG

Py, ©
YZ

Crime Scene Courtroom

Each step in this process is a link in the chain that connects the crime
scene to the courtroom. If I can demonstrate that the links are all connected
and well documented, the jurors will come to trust the fact that the button I
am showing them in court is the same button we discovered at the crime

scene. In an ideal investigation, the officer at the scene, after discovering

the button, would document the discovery in his notes and ask a CSI officer
to photograph the item. The CSI officer would then collect the button and
book it into evidence, carefully packaging it and documenting his or her
efforts in a report. The property room would then accept the button into
evidence, citing the date and time it was booked in, along with the name of
the officer who booked it. Each and every time the button was then
removed from property to be examined by an expert, those handling it
would document the movement of the button. Reports would be written and
property logs would be maintained to track the button’s movement from the
point when it was first booked into property until it was finally checked out
for trial. If this is done properly, the defense will not be able to claim that

the button was planted.

Crime-Scene Cold-Case
Investigator rg Petectiie N

Watt ds,

Lv...

Criminalist

Detectives Courtroom

ma, “a

Many of us still remember the infamous O. J. Simpson trial. Simpson was
accused of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and his
defense team claimed that the police tampered with the evidence in order to
implicate him. LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman testified that he found a
bloodstained glove at the location where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron
Goldman were murdered. He also testified that later in the evening he
traveled to O. J. Simpson’s home and found the matching bloodstained
glove on Simpson’s estate, along with a number of blood drops that were

ultimately connected to Nicole. The defense argued that Fuhrman

transported the items from the scene of the murder and planted them at
Simpson’s residence. The chain of custody was at the center of the

defense’s argument.

A NEW TESTAMENT “CHAIN OF CUSTODY”

Those who are skeptical of the New Testament Gospels offer a similar
objection based on the chain of custody. The Gospels claim to be
eyewitness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. These accounts
were eventually entered into the “court record” when they were established
as Scripture at the Council of Laodicea in AD 363. It was here that early
Christian leaders first identified and codified the canon of the Christian
Scripture, the official list of twenty-seven books and letters that became the
New Testament. No council, prior to this meeting in the fourth century,
formally acknowledged the list of accepted books and letters (including the
Gospels); no “courtroom” recognized the evidence of the Gospels prior to
this important church-council meeting. If the life of Jesus could be
considered the Christian “crime scene,” this council was undoubtedly the
“courtroom” where the evidence of the eyewitness testimony was first

formally acknowledged.

Life of Jesus nr Council of bsndices
(AD 1-33) (AD 363)

That’s quite an expansive period of time between the “crime scene” and
the “courtroom,” don’t you think? A lot could happen in 330 years. I
thought it was tough to trace and track the evidence in my cases, and they
were only decades old! Imagine tracking the evidence for ten times as many
years. Skeptics have considered this period of time and argued that the
eyewitness evidence of the Gospels was “planted.” Like the defense
attorney who argued that the button was added to the collection of evidence
sometime after the crime occurred, skeptics often argue that the Gospels
were written well after the life of Jesus. They are not true evidence; they
were manufactured by conspirators who wanted to fool those who were not

at the “crime scene.”

Unsuspectin
Detective :

“Unsuspectin
Criminalist :

Unsuspecting
Believer

p=————¥ J pursing : rime tt Ye

ROI EE mee” “by Believer %, = sani

Life of Jesus W " i Council of Laodicea
(AD 1-33) The Gospels were “planted” long after Jesus Lived (AD 363)

The best way to counter this sort of a claim is to retrace the chain of
custody to see if we can account for who handled the evidence from the

point of the “crime scene” to its first appearance in the “courtroom.”

EVIDENCE, HISTORY, AND REASONABLE
EXPECTATIONS

While it may sound like an easy task to trace the chain of custody, it can be
extremely difficult in cases that are very old. This is often my dilemma as a
cold-case detective. When I open a case from the past, the first thing I try to
do is collect all the original documents that were written during the first
investigation. That should be easy, right? Well, not always. While these
cases were important to our agency, there are times when unexpected
issues, unrelated to the investigation, can make this task difficult.
Sometimes things are lost when a records database is upgraded as the result
of new storage technology. Sometimes notes or other reports have simply
deteriorated to the point that they are no longer usable. Sometimes

documents are accidentally destroyed or purged. The longer an event slips

into the past, the more likely I may have a problem retrieving all the
information I need to trace the chain of custody. In spite of this, I have been
able to assemble enough of the chain of custody to demonstrate a level of
responsibility to the jury. Given the age of the case, jurors understand that
we simply cannot expect the same level of precise record keeping when
outside forces cannot be controlled over long periods of time.

Something very similar happens when trying to trace the chain of custody
for the gospel eyewitness accounts. Imagine trying to control outside forces
for thousands of years instead of just a few decades. The “original reports”
in the “Christian cold case” were written on papyrus, an excellent material
if you are looking for something that was readily available in the first
century, but a terrible material if you are looking for something that won’t
fall apart when handled frequently. As a result, we no longer have the
original writings (sometimes called “autographs”). The first eyewitness
accounts were copied repeatedly so that they could be distributed
throughout the church and retained in spite of the nature of the papyrus that
was available. It’s now difficult to precisely retrace the movement of the
Gospels over time and establish a chain of custody.

In order to have any success at all, we first need to identify the players
who would be involved in such a chain. In cold-case homicide
investigations, the links in the chain include the responding officers, the
crime-scene investigators, the first detectives, the criminalists, and then the
cold-case detectives, who ultimately bring the case to the prosecutor. But

who would we expect to be involved in the gospel chain of custody?

The Apostolic
m Eyewitnesses

Fate | ae
ah

a i ae of
Yl” the Apostle

Disciple of
the Disciple

KEN

+,
DA

Lia ws | =
AK 4 > ig Sh
~

ces alt
Disciples of
- the ace
Disciple

eal t ef ms °

o = ‘ol Council of Laodicea

(AD 1-33) (AD 3

To trace the New Testament Gospels, we are going to need to identify the
original eyewitnesses and their immediate disciples, moving from one set of
disciples to the next until we trace the Gospels from AD 33 to AD 363. The
New Testament gospel chain of custody, if it exists, would provide us with
confidence that the accounts we have today are an accurate reflection of
what was observed at the “crime scene.” This link-by-link approach to the
history of the accounts would also help us respond to the objections of
skeptics who claim that the Gospels were planted late in history. We will
examine this issue in much more detail in section 2, and we will identify the

historical links in this important chain.

tm A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
4] CHECKLIST

As a detective, I quickly learned the importance of the chain of custody, and
I eventually pulled this principle from my callout bag as I investigated the
reliability of the Gospels. Before I became a Christian, I seldom held the
same level of skepticism for other ancient documents that I held for the
biblical accounts. I can remember having an intense interest in ancient
history from the time I was in high school. I had an “honors” class with a
wonderful, sage-like teacher, Mr. Schultz, who had the ability to bring the

past to life using the ancient written histories of Herodotus and Thucydides,

among others. He taught from these accounts as if they were reliable and
true, and I accepted them without much question. Mr. Schultz never talked
about the fact that the earliest copies we have for these ancient writers
appear in history approximately five hundred years after the events they
claim to describe. There is no clear chain of custody for these historical
accounts during this period of time. We don’t know whom Herodotus, for
example, entrusted with his writings. We don’t know how Herodotus’s
record was preserved or what happened to it during these five hundred
years. This is, of course, the nature of the vast majority of ancient historical
accounts. Given that we accept these accounts as historically factual even
though their history of transmission is missing for five centuries or more,
wouldn’t it be fair to reconsider our historical view of the gospel record if
we discovered that the Gospels have a verifiable chain of custody? We need
to keep this question in mind as we get ready to examine the issue more
thoroughly in section 2.

Of all the documents written by Christians in the first and second
centuries, the texts we most care about are those that made it into the canon
of Scripture. Few of us are familiar with the noncanonical writings from the
earliest period of Christian history. Many early Christian leaders wrote
letters and documents that, while not considered canonical, are rich with
theological content and historical detail. These noncanonical early church
documents can tell us much about the teaching of the original eyewitnesses.
They will eventually become part of the chain of custody as we examine the
transmission of the Gospels in the first three centuries. We would be wise to
have at least some understanding of the identity of the students and
disciples of the apostles and some mastery of their writings. Many of these

men (like Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement) became known as the “early

church fathers.” They led the church following the deaths of the apostles,
and their letters and writings are widely available online and in print form.
The earliest works of these church fathers are often interesting and
enriching. They are worth our time and effort, particularly as we make a
case for the New Testament chain of custody and the reliability of the

Gospels as eyewitness accounts.

Chapter 9\ 9
Principle #9:

KNOW WHEN “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”

“T wasn’t convinced,” said Juror Number 8 as he looked across the table at
the other jurors. Some of them laughed and shook their heads. Juror
Number 8 stood his ground. “Hey, this is a big deal to me. I needed to be
sure.”

We sat together in the jury room, relaxing around a long table after the
trial concluded and the verdict had been read. The jurors were assembled
and eager to ask us questions. They looked exhausted but relieved. The trial
took six weeks, and this jury conscientiously deliberated for another week
before delivering a guilty verdict. I was nervous when the deliberation
stretched beyond the first two days; I suspected that one (or more) of the
jurors was delaying the verdict and that we might be headed toward a “hung
jury.” In California criminal trials, all twelve jurors must agree on the
outcome. If there are any holdouts, no verdict will be reached and the case
must be retried if the prosecutor hopes to convict the defendant. The longer
the deliberation, the more likely the jury is divided. I was beginning to fear
that the group was hung until the court clerk called us and told us that we
had a verdict.

In all honesty, I thought the decision would come back much sooner. This
case was overwhelming. We had nearly forty pieces of evidence that

pointed to the defendant as the killer. In fact, he was actually caught trying

to commit a very similar crime about ten days after he killed the victim in
our town. He even had a knife that matched our victim’s injuries when he
was caught in this second crime. The case was robust and clear; I thought
the jury would come back with a decision in less than a day. I typically join
the prosecutor and interview the jurors following their work on one of our
cases because I want to learn from their observations. What was
evidentially powerful? What was relatively insignificant? What was it that
finally “made the case” for them? Today I was eager to learn why it took
them so long to come to a conclusion. They told me that after reviewing the
evidence and taking their first vote, Juror Number 8 was the sole holdout.
While everyone else was convinced the defendant was guilty, Juror Number
8 was not So sure.

“T take that ‘reasonable doubt’ stuff seriously,” he said. “I mean, my gut
was telling me that he was guilty, but I wasn’t sure if we had enough
evidence to make the ‘standard’ that the judge was talking about. I just
needed to see the evidence one more time.”

“What was it that finally convinced you?” I asked.

“The Band-Aid.”

The Band-Aid? Really? I could hardly believe it. When the defendant
committed the murder, he cut his finger. He went home and bandaged the
injury and was wearing this Band-Aid when the detectives later interviewed
him. He didn’t want the detectives to notice the injury, so he slipped off the
Band-Aid and left it in a comer of the interview room. The detectives
noticed and collected the bandage only after the interview was completed.
We later had the Band-Aid tested for DNA to demonstrate that it did, in

fact, belong to the defendant. But I never considered this bandage to be an

important part of the case. In fact, the prosecutor almost didn’t include it in

the presentation to the jury. Now I was very glad that he did.

WHERE’S THE TIPPING POINT?

You never know the impact that a particular piece of evidence will have on
those who are considering your case. Sometimes the things that don’t matter
much to you personally are the very things that matter the most to someone
else.

I’ve been’ producing a_ podcast and _ hosting a_ website
(PleaseConvinceMe.com) for several years now, and people email me with
their questions and doubts related to the evidence for the Christian
worldview. Skeptics sometimes write to inform me that they simply don’t
believe there is enough evidence to prove that God exists. Christians
sometimes write to tell me that they are struggling with doubt because they
aren’t sure if the evidence is sufficient. In many ways, all of these folks are
struggling with the same question that jurors face in every case. When is
enough, enough? When is it reasonable to conclude that something is true?
When is the evidence sufficient?

In legal terms, the line that must be
f The Escalating crossed before someone can come to the
“— Standard of Proof conclusion that something is evidentially

eit es pred hia eu enee" true is called the “standard of proof” (the

The lowest possible standard (used “SOP”). The SOP varies depending on
in some child-protection hearings).
This standard simply establishes
that there is enough evidence to The most rigorous of these criteria is the
begin an inquiry, investigation, or

trial. “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard

the kind of case under consideration.

“Preponderance of the Evidence” that is required at criminal trials. But

how do we know when we have crossed

This is the next standard of proof
(used in most civil trials). This
standard is established if a doubt”? The courts have considered this
proposition is more likely to be true
than untrue (i.e., 51 percent more

likely to be true). with a definition:

“Clear and Convincing Evidence” “Reasonable doubt is defined as
This is an intermediate standard of
proof (used in some civil and
criminal proceedings). This standard because everything relating to human

is met when a proposition is . . :
significantly and substantially more affairs is open to some possible or

likely to be true than untrue.

the line and are “beyond a reasonable

important issue and have provided us

follows: It is not a mere possible doubt;

imaginary doubt. It is that state of the

“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” case which, after the entire comparison

This is the highest level of proof
required by the law _ (usually
reserved for criminal trials). This eaves the minds of the jurors in that
standard is met when there is no

plausible reason to believe that a | condition that they cannot say they feel
proposition is untrue.

and consideration of all the evidence,

an abiding conviction of the truth of the

This definition is important because it recognizes the difference between
reasonable and possible that we discussed earlier. There are, according to
the ruling of the court, “reasonable doubts,” “possible doubts,” and
“imaginary doubts.” The definition acknowledges something important:
every case has unanswered questions that will cause jurors to wonder. All
the jurors will have doubts as they come to a decision. We will never
remove every possible uncertainty; that’s why the standard is not “beyond
any doubt.” Being “beyond a reasonable doubt” simply requires us to

separate our possible and imaginary doubts from those that are reasonable.

“SHUNNING” THE TRUTH

There are many reasons why people may deny (or “shun”) the truth. Not all

reasons are based on evidence. Jurors can reject a truth claim for

“ra’shun’al,” “emo’shun’al,” or “voli’shun’al” reasons. Sometimes jurors
have rational doubts that are based on the evidence. Perhaps the defense
has convinced them that an alternative explanation is better supported
evidentially. Sometimes jurors have doubts that are purely emotional. I’ve
been involved in cases where jurors had an emotional reaction to the
prosecutor or defense attorney and struggled to overcome negative feelings
so they could evaluate the case fairly. Sometimes jurors deny the truth for
volitional reasons. They are willfully resistant and refuse to accept any
position offered by the group. Attorneys on both sides do their best to
identify strong-willed people such as these during the jury selection process
to make sure that the jury is composed of people who will listen to the
arguments of others. When making a decision that’s based on evidence, it’s
important for us to understand the “shuns” we’ve described and limit our
doubts to those that are rational and reasonable.

This makes the decision-making process much easier. When assessing the
case, we simply need to examine our doubts and separate those that are
based on evidence (rational doubts) from those that are not (emotional or
volitional doubts). If the doubts we still possess fall into the second
category, we can be comfortable with our decision. Once we identify the
fact that our doubts are not reasonable, we can deliver a verdict, even

though we may still have unanswered questions.

YOU’LL NEVER KNOW ALL THERE IS TO
KNOW

It’s important to remember that truth can be known even when some of the
facts are missing. None of us has ever made a decision with complete
knowledge of all the possible facts. There are always unanswered questions.

I use a version of the puzzle illustration (from chapter 6) when trying to

help jurors understand this truth. As we assemble a case that points to any
particular defendant, we begin to collect pieces of evidence that slowly
reveal the identity of the killer. We begin to assemble the puzzle. While
there might be a large amount of evidence in the prosecution’s case, no
criminal case possesses every possible piece of evidence. No prosecutor is

able to answer every conceivable question.

Like this puzzle, every cold case I work has missing pieces. Some of
these pieces are obvious and glaring. But notice that their absence doesn’t
keep us from having certainty about the image; we recognize the picture
even though some things are missing. We have certainty because the pieces
we do have reveal the killer’s identity (in this case, Al Capone, the famous
Chicago gangster and crime syndicate leader of the 1920s). We have
certainty because additional pieces, even if they are different from what we
might imagine, would not significantly change the identity we see in the
puzzle. We have confidence in concluding that Al Capone is pictured here,

even though there are unanswered questions about the puzzle.

For some, the idea of making a decision while there are still unanswered
questions seems premature and even dangerous. What if there are
outstanding facts that are yet unknown to us? What if new, additional
information comes to light in a few years that contradicts the evidence that
we have in front of us today? Wouldn’t it be wiser for us to simply withhold
judgment until every question can be answered (including those we haven’t
even thought of yet)? But juries understand the importance of acting on
what they do know rather than fretting about what could be known. In
courtrooms across America, jurors are asked to act (in the present) on the
evidence available (from the past) to decide what ought to happen (in the
future). They make these decisions because what they do know outweighs
what might possibly be known if every question could be answered. Either
the evidence is sufficient today or it is not; jurors must assess what they
have in front of them at the moment rather than speculate about what they

might find out later.

EVIDENTIAL SUFFICIENCY AND THE
PROBLEM OF EVIL

A listener of the PleaseConvinceMe
fi.) Epicurus and the podcast recently sent me an email
“4 Problem of Evil expressing his doubts in the existence of

The ancient Greek philosopher 0 all-powerful and all-loving God,

Epicurus is credited with first posing
the “problem of evil’ as it relates to
the existence of God: This is a classic objection to theism. If

“Either God wants to abolish evil,
and cannot; or he can, but does not
want to. If he wants to, but cannot, people to do evil things? Either this
he is impotent. If he can, but does
not want to, he is wicked. If God can

given the presence of evil in the world.

God does exist, why would He allow

“God” is unable to stop people from

acting as they do (in which case He is

abolish evil, and God really wants to
do it, why is there evil in the world?”
(According to Lactantius in On the Stop them (in which case He is not all-

Wrath of God, ca. AD 313)

not all-powerful), or He is unwilling to

loving). The writer posed this question
to me because he knew what I did for a
living:

“T bet you see many terrible things that people do to one another. How
can you still believe in such a God?”

The problem of evil is perhaps the most difficult issue to address because
it is emotionally loaded. It’s at times like these that I try to help people walk
through the distinctions between reasonable doubts (that are grounded
rationally) and possible doubts (that are grounded emotionally). Let me
explain.

We need to start by recognizing that there are many good reasons to
believe that God exists (we talked about some of them in chapter 3). These
pieces of the puzzle are already in place before we start talking about the
issue of evil. Yes, there are some unanswered questions related to the
existence of evil, but we have to begin our examination by recognizing that
the puzzle is well on its way to completion even though this piece may
seem to be missing. Next, we have to ask ourselves if the presence of evil
truly represents a missing piece. Is it possible, instead, that the existence of
evil may actually be an additional piece that helps make the puzzle more
certain?

When people complain that there is evil in the world, they are not simply
offering their opinion. They are instead saying that true, objective evil
exists. They are complaining about evil behavior as though this behavior
ought to be recognized by all of us, regardless of our personal likes,

dislikes, or opinions about human conduct. If evil were a matter of opinion,

we could eliminate it by simply changing our minds. People who complain
about evil behavior must accept the premise that true, objective “right” and
“wrong” exist in the first place. They must accept that some things are
morally virtuous and some things are morally repulsive, no matter who you
are, where you are located, or when you live in history. This kind of moral
evil transcends all of us; if it doesn’t, why complain in the first place? If
evil is simply a matter of opinion, why doesn’t the man who emailed me
simply change his opinion?

You see, in order for true evil to exist (so that the writer has something
legitimate to complain about), there must be a true barometer of right and
wrong. In order for an act to be objectively “bad,” there must be some
standard of objective “good” by which to measure it. What might that
standard be if not God? Can the standard come from some evolutionary
process? Can it come from the slow development of cultural groups? If so,
morals are simply a matter of opinion (albeit a largely held opinion), and
there is nothing objectively evil to complain about. Remember that even the
most heinous regimes of history identified their own behavior as morally
virtuous. In order for true evil to exist, there must be a source of true good
that transcends any and all groups that might make a claim about the
existence of evil. In other words, the existence of true evil necessitates the
presence of God as a standard of true virtue. It turns out that the existence
of evil is actually another evidence for God’s existence, another piece of the
puzzle that reveals God’s image.

But let’s return to the very real issue of evil behavior. Why would God
allow people to kill each other if He loves us and is powerful enough to stop
it? While this question has emotional power, we have to ask ourselves if

there might be a reasonable explanation. Are we thinking it through

evidentially, or are we reacting emotionally? Are we rejecting the existence

of God because there is no rational explanation for the existence of evil, or

are we resisting volitionally because we stubbornly refuse to accept any
explanation that might be offered?

I can think of a number of very good

() Theodicy reasons why God would allow people to

“Tha theolagical discipline behave immorally, even though He loves

that seeks to explain how the His creation and is certainly powerful
existence of evil in the world can be

reconciled with the justice and enough to stop evil. Ask yourself this
goodness of God” (Webster’s New
World College Dictionary, Wiley

Publishing Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, who creates a world in which love is
2010).

question: Which is more loving, a God

possible or a God who creates a world in
which love is impossible? It seems reasonable that a loving God would
create a world where love is possible and can be experienced by creatures
who are designed “in His image.” But a world in which love is possible can
be a dangerous place. Love requires freedom. True love requires that
humans have the ability to freely choose; love cannot be forced if it is to be
heartfelt and real. The problem, of course, is that people who have the
freedom to love often choose to hate. That’s why freedom of this nature is
so costly. A world in which people have the freedom to love and perform
great acts of kindness is also a world in which people have the freedom to
hate and commit great acts of evil. You cannot have one without the other.
In addition to this, from a Christian perspective, we are all eternal
creatures who will live beyond the grave. If this is true, then questions
about why God might not stop evil are a bit premature. At best, we can say
only that God hasn’t stopped evil yet. But God has all eternity to act in this

regard. Our eternal life provides the context for God to deal justly with

those who choose hate and perform acts of evil. God is powerful enough to
stop evil completely, and He does care about justice. But as an eternal
Being, He may choose to take care of it on an eternal timeline. Compared to
eternity, this mortal existence is but a vapor, created by God to be a
wonderful place where love is possible for those who choose it.

If there are good reasons why God might permit evil in this life (such as
the preservation of free will and the ability to love genuinely), concerns
about His failure to act are simply unreasonable. Doubts about God’s
existence based on the problem of evil may have emotional appeal, but they
lack rational foundation because reasonable explanations do, in fact, exist.
While one can imagine possible doubts related to the problem of evil,
careful consideration of the nature of objective evil reveals that these doubts
are not reasonable. We ought to be able to move beyond our reservations
here because the problem of evil does not present us with a reasonable
doubt.

mA TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
| CHECKLIST

In every investigation I’ve conducted, this principle related to evidential
sufficiency has helped me evaluate my own conclusions and determine if
they were reasonable; this important tool from our callout bag can also help
us assess the claims of Christianity. All of us need to recognize that we
make decisions every day with less-than-perfect knowledge and missing
information. In our daily decisions, we act with certainty even though we
don’t know everything that could be known on any particular topic. We
learn to trust our cars, even though we don’t completely understand how

they operate mechanically. We trust our mates and children, even though we

don’t know everything they are thinking or everything they are doing when
we are away. We make a case for what we believe, and we accept the fact
that we can’t know everything. Criminal cases require the highest legal
standard; they require juries to come to a decision that is “beyond a
reasonable doubt.” The decisions that juries make are often a matter of life
and death for the defendants who have been accused. If this standard is
appropriate for important cases involving temporal matters of life and
death, it is reasonable to apply the standard to the case that will determine
our eternal life or death. Juries are able to reach a verdict beyond a
reasonable doubt, even though there are still some unanswered questions.
They do this because the reasonable evidence they possess is greater than
the possible questions that remain unanswered. Let’s make sure that our
objections and doubts are less emotional or volitional than they are rational.
When I was an atheist, I never took the time to categorize my doubts into
“rational” versus “emotional” classifications. I also never took the time to
see if theism (or Christianity) offered a reasonable response to my doubts.
Looking back at them, many of my doubts were merely possible doubts
based on an emotional or volitional response.

I often get frustrated when sharing what I believe about God with my
skeptical friends, coworkers, and family members. Those of us who are
interested in making a rational, evidential case for our Christian worldview
sometimes find our efforts to be completely unfruitful. Try as we might,
even when we make a cogent, articulate, reasonable case for our view, our
efforts seem to have no impact on our listeners. It’s tempting to get
frustrated and begin to doubt our own evidence. In times like these, it’s
important to remember the “shuns” of denial. Many of the people we are

trying to reach are willing to deny the truth of God’s existence on the basis

of an emotional or volitional response, rather than on the basis of good
evidence. This is not to say that all atheists are irrational, emotional, or
willfully resistant. Many have taken the time to make a reasoned case of
their own. It’s our responsibility as Christians to make the effort to know
our friends and family well enough to understand the nature of their denial.
When they are resisting on the basis of evidence, let’s examine the facts
together and assess which explanations are the most reasonable. When they
are resisting for other reasons, let’s be sensitive enough to ask the kinds of
questions that will help us understand where they are coming from before
we overwhelm them with the evidence we are so eager to share. Don’t
expect someone to respond to your reasoned arguments when the evidence

wasn’t that important to him or her in the first place.

CASE NOTES

29. Ochoa v. Evans, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112693 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2009).

AN
3

i)
NT 4

Ne
re

Chapter 10 \<

Principle #10:

PREPARE FOR AN ATTACK

My partner sent me a joke involving a defense attorney and a murder trial;
the joke’s been circulating around our police agency for some time:

A defendant was on trial for a murder. There was overwhelming
circumstantial evidence pointing to the defendant’s guilt, in spite of the fact
that the body of the victim was never recovered. After sitting through weeks
of the trial, the defendant and his lawyer knew that he would probably be
convicted. In an act of desperation, the defense attorney resorted to a trick.

“Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I have a surprise for you,” the
attorney proclaimed as he looked down at his watch. “Within sixty seconds,
the person you thought had been murdered will walk into this courtroom.”

He turned and looked toward the courtroom door. The jurors, surprised by
the proclamation, turned and watched the door in anticipation. A minute
passed. Nothing happened.

Finally the defense attorney said, “I need to admit to you that I lied about
that last statement. But all of you tured with me and watched that door
with eager anticipation. This demonstrates that you have a reasonable doubt
in this case as to whether anyone was actually killed in the first place! I,
therefore, insist that you return a verdict of not guilty.”

The jury, openly rattled by the clever effort, retired to deliberate on the

case. Moments later they returned and promptly delivered a verdict of

guilty. The defense attorney was shocked.

“How could you return with a verdict so quickly?” he asked the jury.
“You must have had some doubt; I saw all of you watch that door with
expectation!”

The jury foreman replied, “Yes, we did look, but your client didn’t.”

I’ve been involved in a number of homicide trials over the years. Some of
our cases have been evidentially overwhelming, and others have been more
difficult to prove. In each and every case, the defendant has been
represented by an articulate, intelligent, and committed defense attorney
who carefully crafted a defense for his or her client. Many of these
attorneys appeared to be incredibly confident, in spite of the overwhelming
evidence that pointed to the guilt of their clients.

I’m never surprised by the enthusiasm and self-assurance of good defense
attorneys. It’s been my experience that there are many factors that can
motivate an attorney to perform confidently and aggressively in behalf of a
defendant. I suspect that some attorneys work diligently because they have
a true belief in the innocence of their clients. Some attorneys probably work
diligently because they have a true belief in the importance of fair and
adequate representation in our criminal justice system, even if they don’t
personally believe that their clients are innocent. Some attorneys may work
diligently because they have a true belief in advancing their careers. One
thing is for sure, defense attorneys present the best case they can, even

when they may not believe they are defending the truth.

THE GROWING ATTACK FROM SKEPTICS
I became a Christian in 1996. Until 2001, the Jim Wallace I knew prior to
1996 was the most sarcastic atheist I had ever known. I can remember some

of my conversations with Christians prior to becoming a believer, and I am

now embarrassed by the way I behaved; many of my coworkers continue to
remind me of those days. But my own level of prior sarcasm was quickly
eclipsed by the atheists who began to write and speak against religion
following the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. A new era in
atheistic rhetoric began following that dreadful day, as prominent atheists
responded to what they saw as evidence of the evil of “religious
fundamentalism.” A number of books flooded the shelves of local
bookstores. Sam Harris wrote The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the
Future of Reason (2004) and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006). Richard
Dawkins wrote The God Delusion (2006), and Christopher Hitchens wrote
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007). The attack
from atheists and skeptics grew and took on a new form of immediacy,
aggression, and sarcasm.

Many Christians, especially those who had been believers for most of
their lives, were caught off guard by the confidence and articulate
opposition of these authors and those who shared their negative view of
Christianity. The culture quickly seemed to embrace the winsome atheist
criticisms; book sales for these three writers were phenomenal. The mere
fact that anyone could offer a thoughtful and engaging defense of atheism
seemed to shake the confidence of many believers who may have been
taking their faith for granted. It wasn’t as though these skeptics were
offering anything new. Instead, they were presenting old arguments with
new vigor, humor, cynicism, and urgency. They were much like the defense
attorneys I had faced over the years.

I’ve discovered that good defense attorneys typically bring out the best in
prosecutors and detectives, so I’ve learned to embrace the work of defense

lawyers who have caused me to make sure my case is sound and

reasonable. The fact that there is a defender on the opposite side of the issue
who is arguing vociferously against us is no reason to believe that the
defender possesses the truth. Defense attorneys operate that way even when
they are defending what turns out to be a lie. The existence of a well-
articulated defensive argument alone is no reason to surrender our position,
but it ought to encourage us to know our case better than anyone else.
Defense attorneys (just like those who oppose the claims of Christianity)

ought to bring out the best in us.

THE DEFENSIVE STRATEGY

Defense attorneys approach each case differently, but I’ve noticed a number
of general strategies that lawyers have taken when trying to defeat my cold-
case investigations. By examining these defensive strategies and comparing
them to the approach that is often taken by those who oppose Christianity,

we can assess the validity of these tactics.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF TRUTH

If all truth is simply a matter of perspective and subjective opinion, it’s
virtually impossible to convict someone of a crime. We live in a culture that
is more and more pluralistic with each passing generation. Many of our
young adults have been taught (in universities and colleges and through
movies, television, and books) that objective truth does not exist or simply
cannot be known. As a result, relativism is a common feature of our cultural
worldview. People are less and less comfortable accepting that one
particular version of the truth is exclusively correct. In fact, many believe
that such a view of truth is arrogant and narrow-minded. To make matters
worse, a new cultural definition of “tolerance” has emerged. Tolerance used

to be the attitude that we took toward one another when we disagreed about

an important issue; we would agree to treat each other with respect, even
though we refused to embrace each other’s view on a particular topic.
Tolerance is now the act of recognizing and embracing all views as equally
valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims.
According to this redefinition of tolerance, anything other than acceptance
and approval is narrow-minded and bigoted. Defense attorneys are
capitalizing on these evolving redefinitions of truth and tolerance. If a
lawyer can convince a jury that no version of what happened is better than
another (because all truth is simply a matter of personal perspective and
opinion), the jury is going to have trouble convicting the defendant with any
level of confidence. For this reason, some defense attorneys begin by
attacking the nature of truth before they ever attack the nature of the
prosecution’s case.
The erosion of the classic view of
Fa “Objective Truth” — objective truth and tolerance is also
taking its toll on those who hold a

While many truths are
certainly a matter of opinion, some = Christian worldview. The notion that
truths are completely independent of
anyone’s personal view. My there might be only one Way to God (or
statement “Police cars are the
coolest cars on the road” may be
true for me (given thatl am oftenthe pature of God) is offensive and
one driving these cars), while. :
completely untrue for you (especially intolerant to many _ skeptics and
when | pull you over for rolling
through a stop sign). This statement
is a matter of my “subjective? similar misunderstandings about the
Opinion; it is dependent on the
“subject” who possesses it. The
Statement “Police cars are equipped tg expose the logical problems inherent
to travel in excess of 100 mph” is not
dependent on my opinion, however, to the new cultural definitions. While
this second statement is either true
or false on the basis of the “object”
itself. Police cars are equipped to

only one truth about the identity and

nonbelievers. Like prosecutors who face

nature of truth, Christians may also have

some may argue that all religions are

travel this fast, and my “subjective”

‘ cae basically the same, this is simply untrue.
opinion has nothing to do with it.

The world’s religions propose contrary
claims related to the nature of God. Eastern religions propose the existence
of an impersonal god, while the monotheistic religions of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam claim that God is personal. Judaism refuses to
recognize Jesus as anything other than a “rabbi” or spiritual teacher, while
Christianity claims that Jesus was God Himself. Islam denies that Jesus
died on the cross, while Christianity claims that Jesus died at the crucifixion
and then rose from the dead, verifying His deity. All of these claims about
God and Jesus may be false, but they cannot all be true; they contradict one
another by definition. The logical law of “noncontradiction” states that
contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. Those who
are evaluating the claims of the world’s religions, like jurors evaluating a
criminal case, must decide which of the views is supported by the evidence,
rather than surrender the decision to an errant view of truth.

In addition to this, those who are investigating Christianity may want to
rethink the latest cultural definitions of truth and tolerance. Those who
claim that truth is a matter of perspective and opinion are proclaiming this
as more than a matter of perspective and opinion. They would like us to
believe that this definition is objectively true, even as they deny the
existence of objective truth. When a statement fails to meet its own standard
for being true, it is said to be “self-refuting.” The claim that “objective truth
does not exist” is self-refuting because it is, in fact, an objective claim about
truth. The current redefinition of tolerance doesn’t fare much better. Those
who claim that tolerance requires all ideas and perspectives to be embraced
as equally true and valuable simultaneously deny the classic view of

tolerance. In other words, the new definition of tolerance is intolerant of the

old definition. It cannot follow its own rules. It is just as self-refuting as the
new redefinition of truth; we simply need to help people understand that

this is the case.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS FOCUS ON THE BEST THE
PROSECUTION HAS TO OFFER
While circumstantial cases are built on many pieces of evidence that are
evaluated as a group, some pieces are better (and more important to the
case) than others. For this reason, defense attorneys focus their attention on
the heart of the prosecution’s case, the prominent and most condemning
pieces of evidence that have been presented. If they can discredit or
eliminate these key pieces of evidence, the foundation of the prosecution’s
case may begin to crumble. In fact, if I want to know what the defense
thinks of my case (and what it considers to be the most devastating piece of
evidence), I simply have to observe what it is attacking with the most vigor.
If my case is thin or weak, the defense will be comfortable attacking the one
piece it believes to be critical. If my case is substantial and strong, the
defense will find itself trying to attack a much larger number of issues in an
effort to limit the cumulative impact of the evidence. I know where my case
is strong when I see what the defense has chosen to attack.
Skeptics do something similar when

i) What Makes It they attack the claims of Christianity.

“Hearsay”? The Christian worldview is built on the

A “hearsay” statement is anything eyewitness testimony of the gospel

said outside of the courtroom that is
then offered inside the courtroom
(during a court proceeding) as attack the reliability of the Gospels as
evidence of the truth of the matter
asserted. Since jurors have to

assess the credibility of a witness, the case for Christianity. This focused
courts generally require witnesses to

writers. For this reason, many skeptics

their primary tactic in trying to defeat

be in the courtroom so (1) they can
“swear” or promise that their
testimony is true, (2) they can be strength of our case. Like defense
personally present at the proceeding
so the jury can assess them visually,

and (3) they can be cross-examined = yaluable piece of evidence. As a result,
by the opposition.

attack on the Gospels reveals the
attorneys, skeptics recognize our most

some critics attempt to undermine the
reliability of the gospel writers as eyewitnesses (we’ll talk more about that
in section 2), while others seek to have this testimony “tossed out” as
unreliable “hearsay” before it can even be evaluated. They argue that the
gospel accounts fail to meet the judicial standard we require of
eyewitnesses in criminal cases. Witnesses must be present in court in order
for their testimony to be considered in a criminal trial. This often presents a
problem for me as cold-case detective. I have a few cases that are now
impossible to complete because key witnesses are dead and can no longer
testify in court. It’s not enough that I may have someone who heard what
these witnesses once said about an event. If I called those “second level”
witnesses into court, their testimony would be considered “hearsay.” It
would be inadmissible simply because the original witness was no longer
available to be cross-examined for evaluation. This is a reasonable standard

to hold for criminal trials; as a society, we hold that “it is better that ten

guilty persons escape ... than that one innocent suffer.”22 For this reason,
we’ve created a rigorous (and sometimes difficult) legal standard for
eyewitnesses.

But this standard is simply too much to require of historical eyewitness
testimony. The vast majority of historical events must be evaluated in spite
of the fact that the eyewitnesses are now dead and cannot come into court to
testify. The eyewitnesses who observed the crafting and signing of the

Constitution of the United States are lost to us. Those who witnessed the

life of Abraham Lincoln are also lost to us. It’s one thing to require
eyewitness cross-examination on a case that may condemn a defendant to
the gas chamber; it’s another thing to hold history up to such an
unreasonable necessity. If we require this standard for historical accounts,
be prepared to jettison everything you think you know about the past.
Nothing can be known about history if live eyewitnesses are the only
reliable witnesses we can consult. If this were the case, we could know
nothing with certainty beyond two or three living generations. Once the
eyewitnesses die, history is lost. But we have great confidence about many
historical events, in spite of the fact that the eyewitnesses have long been in
their graves. As we evaluate the writers of any historical account, we must
simply do our best to assess them under the four criteria we discussed in
chapter 4 (we’ll apply these criteria in section 2). Our goals are the same as
we have for living courtroom eyewitnesses, but our expectations are
appropriate to the examination of history. This is reasonable, given the

nature of events that occurred in the distant past.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TARGET THE MICRO AND DISTRACT
FROM THE MACRO

As we’ve already described, strong circumstantial cases are built on large
collections of evidence; the more pieces of evidence that point to the
suspect, the stronger the case. For this reason, defense attorneys attempt to
distract juries from the larger collection by focusing them on individual
pieces. The last thing the defense attorney wants the jury to see is how the
pieces come together as a group to complete the puzzle. Instead, a defense
lawyer wants jurors to examine each piece of the puzzle in isolation from
all the rest, hoping that the item under consideration can be explained in

some manner that won’t implicate his or her client. If there is more than one

reasonable way to interpret an individual piece of evidence, the law requires
that juries decide in favor of the defendant’s innocence. Defense attorneys,
therefore, spend time trying to take the jury’s eyes off the larger collection
and focus the jury on the minutiae. A single puzzle piece, when examined
in isolation, is difficult to understand without seeing the larger puzzle. One
little puzzle piece might be part of any number of puzzles; there’s just no
way to know until we see how it fits with the rest. It’s the job of defense
attorneys to keep jurors from seeing how the pieces fit together.

Those who challenge the claims of Christianity take a similar approach.
Let’s take a look at the case for Peter’s influence on the gospel of Mark as
an example. Skeptics have noticed that Mark’s account fails to include the
fact that Peter got out of the boat and nearly drowned when Jesus was
walking on water (as we described earlier, compare Mark 6:45—52 with
Matt. 14:22-33). If this part of the puzzle is examined in isolation, it seems
reasonable that Peter had no influence on the gospel of Mark at all (as many
skeptics claim). How could Mark leave out this detail if he truly had access
to Peter? Skeptics have used this passage of Scripture to argue against the
eyewitness authorship and reliability of the Bible. But when this individual
passage is examined alongside all the other verses involving Peter in the
gospel of Mark, the more reasonable explanation emerges. It’s only when
examining all these passages as a group that we see Mark’s consistent
pattern of respect and stewardship toward Peter. It’s in the larger context
where we see that Mark consistently seeks to protect Peter’s reputation and
honor. When we combine this fact with the other pieces of the puzzle
offered in chapter 5, the case for Peter’s influence on Mark’s gospel is

substantial and reasonable. Like jurors in a criminal trial, we need to resist

the effort of those who want us to focus on the individual puzzle pieces as

though they were not part of a larger puzzle.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ATTACK THE MESSENGER
Nearly every piece of courtroom
J) “Ad Hominem” evidence is submitted through the

Attacks involvement of a human agent.

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”) Eyewitness testimony is one obvious

isan abbreviated form of example of this, but even forensic
Argumentum ad = hominem. _ lt

describes what is normally seen as evidence is dependent on human
a logical fallacy: the attempt to
discredit the truth of a claim by
pointing out some negative observed it or a criminalist who later
characteristic, behavior, or belief of

the person who is making the claim. examined it. Defense attorneys
Dictionary.com describes ad
hominem as “attacking an

opponent's character rather than the evidence when they don’t like what
answering his argument.”

participation: a detective who first

sometimes attack the person presenting

the evidence says about their client. This
is why you often see a vigorous (and critical) cross-examination of key
witnesses; defense attorneys typically vilify these witnesses, claiming some
bias or highlighting potentially offensive behavior in the witness’s
professional or personal life. If the defense can get the jury to hate the
witness, it may be able to get the jury to hate the evidence the witness has
presented.

This has become a prominent tactic of skeptics who deny the claims of
Christianity. There can be no doubt that history is replete with examples of
people who claimed to be Christians, yet behaved poorly. In fact, many
people have committed great violence in the name of Christianity, claiming
that their Christian worldview authorized or justified their actions, even

though the teaching of Jesus clearly opposed their behavior. But a fair

examination of history will also reveal that Christians were not alone.
Groups holding virtually every worldview, from theists to atheists, have
been equally guilty of violent misbehavior. Atheists point to the Crusades
and the Spanish Inquisition when making a case against Christians; theists
point to the atheistic regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung when
making a case against atheists. Death statistics are debated in an effort to
argue which groups were more violent, but all this seems to miss the point.
The common denominator in this violent misbehavior was not worldview; it
was the presence of humans.

If we are going to decide what’s true on the basis of how people behave,
we’re in big trouble, because every worldview suffers from examples of
adherents who have behaved inconsistently and poorly. I expect that news
headlines will continue to feature the apparent hypocrisy of those who
claim to be Christians. Jesus certainly predicted that there would be
counterfeit Christians (“weeds”) living alongside those who were true
followers of Christ (“wheat”) in the parable of the weeds (Matt. 13:24—30
NIv). I also expect that skeptics will continue to use incidents involving
“counterfeit Christians” to their advantage, seeking to vilify these people in
order to invalidate the evidence itself. Discourse and dialogue related to
Christianity seem to become more vitriolic and demeaning with each
passing year. Public debates are often less about substantive arguments than
they are about ad hominem attacks. In the end, however, it’s all going to
come down to the evidence. That’s why prosecutors warn juries about the
difference between personal attacks and reasoned explanations. Tactics that
rely on sarcasm and ridicule must not be allowed to replace arguments that

rely on evidence and reason.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WANT PERFECTION

Every criminal investigation (and prosecution) is a serious matter, and juries
understand this. Defense attorneys sometimes capitalize on _ the
appropriately serious attitude of jurors by criticizing the fact that the
prosecution’s case was something less than perfect. Given the grave
importance of these kinds of cases, shouldn’t the authorities have done
everything conceivable to conduct a perfect, flawless investigation?
Shouldn’t every imaginable piece of evidence have been recovered?
Shouldn’t every possible witness have been located? By identifying the
imperfections and limitations of the investigation, attorneys hope to reveal a
lack of concern and accuracy that might undermine the prosecution’s case.
Something similar occurs when
“9 Working with All skeptics point to the allegedly
the Imperfections = «ijmperfect” or “incomplete” historical

Juries must understand that thereis | @Vidence supporting the claims of

no such thing as a “perfect” case.
Jurors are told in advance, for
example, that they will not have have a complete set of documents from
access to everything that could be
known about a case. Judges instruct
juries that “neither side is required to century? Why don’t we have some of the
call all witnesses who may have

information about the case or to missing letters mentioned in the New
produce all physical evidence that
might be relevant” (Section 300,
Judicial Council of California Corinthian church described in 1
Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006). oe

Juries are not allowed to speculate Corinthians 5:9 or John’s letter to
about what is missing, but must
focus instead on the reasonable
inferences that can be drawn from John? Why isn’t there more evidence
what is not.

Christianity. Why, for example, don’t we

all the apostles who wrote in the first

Testament, like Paul’s prior letter to the

Diotrephes’s church cited in verse 9 of 3

from sources outside the biblical record
corroborating the events described in the Bible (more on this in chapter
12)?

While expectations of perfection may assist defense attorneys as they
attack the prosecution’s case and skeptics as they attack the claims of
Christianity, these kinds of expectations are unreasonable. I’ve never seen a
“perfect” investigation, and I’ve certainly never conducted one. All
inquiries and examinations of the truth (including historical investigations)
have their unique deficiencies. Jurors understand that they must work with
what they have in front of them. Either the evidence is sufficient or it is not.
Jurors can’t dwell on what “might have been” or what “could have been
done,” unless they have evidence and good reason to believe that the truth
was lost along the way. Juries cannot assume there is a better explanation
(other than the one offered by the prosecution) simply because there were
imperfections in the case; reasonable doubts must be established with
evidence. In a similar way, skeptics cannot reject the reasonable inferences
from the evidence we do have, simply because there may possibly be some
evidence we dont have; skeptics also need to defend their doubt

evidentially.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE
“POSSIBILITIES”

Defense attorneys do their best to

\ Alternative
Explanations

Judges instruct juries to be wary of
explanations that are not reasonably
supported by the evidence. Judges
advise jurors that they “must be
convinced that the only reasonable
conclusion supported by _ the
circumstantial evidence is that the
defendant is guilty. If you can draw
two or more reasonable conclusions

prevent jurors from accepting the

prosecution’s version of — events.
Sometimes it’s not enough to simply
“poke holes” in the prosecution’s case in
an effort to distract the jury from the
totality of the evidence. Defense
attorneys will sometimes provide an

alternative theory about what happened

from the circumstantial evidence,
and one of those reasonable
conclusions points to innocence and _‘ evidential case for a completely different
another to guilt, you must accept the
one that points to innocence.
However, when considering ~—_ however, the defense will simply imply
circumstantial evidence, you must

accept only reasonable conclusions an alternative explanation by asking
and reject any that are
unreasonable” (Section 224, Judicial

Council of California Criminal Jury number of alternate “possibilities,” even
Instructions, 2006).

in a particular crime, building their own

explanation. More often than not,

suggestive questions that open up a

though these “possibilities” are not
supported by any evidence. The goal here is to provide jurors with some
way to assemble a narrative that does not involve the defendant’s guilt.
Prosecutors have to help jurors assess the difference between “possible” and
“reasonable” in times like this and encourage jurors to limit their
deliberations to reasonable inference from the evidence rather than
speculating on unsupported possibilities.

Those who deny the historicity of Jesus sometimes take an approach
that’s similar to that of defense attorneys. Some skeptics have denied the
existence of Jesus altogether by proposing an alternative possibility. Citing
the similarities between Jesus and other “savior mythologies” of antiquity,
they’ve argued that Jesus is simply another work of fiction, created by
people who wanted to start a new religious tradition. Many of these critics
point to the ancient deity Mithras as a prime example of the fictional
borrowing they claim occurred in the formation of Christianity. They
describe Mithras as a savior who appeared nearly four hundred years prior

to the first Christians, and they point to the following similarities:

Mithras was born of a virgin.
Mithras was born in a cave, attended by shepherds.

Mithras had twelve companions or disciples.

Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd.”
Mithras was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

While these similarities are striking and seem to sustain an alternative
theory related to the historicity of Jesus, a brief investigation quickly
reveals that they are unsupported by the evidence. There is no existing
“Mithraic scripture” available to us today; all our speculations about the
Mithras legend are dependent on Mithraic paintings and sculptures and on
what was written about Mithras worshippers by the Christians who
observed them between the first and third centuries. Even with what little
we do know, it is clear that Mithras was not bom of a virgin in a cave.
Mithras reportedly emerged from solid rock, leaving a cave in the side of a
mountain. There is also no evidence that Mithras had twelve companions or
disciples; this similarity may be based on a mural that places the twelve
personages of the Zodiac in a circle around Mithras. There is no evidence
that Mithras was ever called the “Good Shepherd,” and although Mithras
was a “sun-god” and associated with Leo (the House of the Sun in
Babylonian astrology), there is no evidence that he was identified with the
Lion. There is also no evidence that Mithras ever died, let alone rose again
after three days. These claims of skeptics (like the “possibilities” offered by
defense attorneys) are not supported by the evidence. It’s important to
remember that a “possible” response is not necessarily a “plausible”

refutation.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS EMPLOY A CULTURALLY WINSOME
ATTITUDE

Most defense lawyers understand the

A Presentation Is Noimportance of “first impressions.” I’ve

Ya Piece of
' Evidence

Jurors are also advised that the
words of the attorneys are not to be
considered as evidence: “Nothing
that the attorneys say is evidence. In
their opening statements and
closing arguments, the attorneys will
discuss the case, but their remarks
are not evidence. Their questions
are not evidence. Only the
witnesses’ answers are evidence.
The attorneys’ questions are
significant only if they help you
understand the witnesses’ answers.
Do not assume that something is
true just because one of the
attorneys asks a question that
suggests it is true” (Section 104,
Judicial Council of California
Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).

been involved in a number of high-
profile cases with prominent defense
attorneys. These attorneys were brutally
aggressive, sarcastic, and rancorous in
the preliminary hearings, _—-while
personable, endearing, and charismatic
in the jury trials. What’s the difference?
The presence of a jury; jurors are not
present at preliminary hearings. Defense
lawyers understand that style is often as
important as substance. How you deliver
a claim is sometimes more important
than the claim itself. For this reason,
often keen

defense attorneys are

observers of the culture; they borrow

mannerisms and language that will effectively endear their persona and

message to the jury they are trying to convince. The facts are sometimes of

secondary importance.

The skeptics in our midst are equally savvy. Christians are not the only

people who take an urgent, evangelical approach to their worldview. Many

popular atheists are equally interested in proselytizing those around them.

They are keenly aware of what is popular. As a part of the culture they are

trying to reach, they understand what people are watching on television and

on the Internet. They’ve seen the hit movies and purchased the best-selling

music. They’ve mastered the language and are shaping the art, music, and

literature of our society. They often portray Christians as antiquated,
backward-thinking “dinosaurs” who are out of touch with progressive
concepts and the current culture. They recognize and capitalize on the well-
intentioned desire of many Christians to resist the things of the world in
favor of the things of God (1 John 2:15). Skeptics often have an advantage
in communicating their opposition and alternative theories simply because
they are more aligned with the culture they are trying to influence.

This is often revealed most glaringly in televised debates between
Christians and nonbelievers. The most effective skeptics are those who (like
effective defense attorneys) make a winsome connection with the audience.
They are endearing. They are entertaining. They understand and highlight
the doubts and concerns that people have about Christianity. They use
persuasive rhetoric to make their points. I’ve seen a number of debates in
which the Christian representative possessed the best arguments and
mastery of the evidence, yet seemed less influential from the perspective of
communication. In a culture where image is more important than
information, style more important than substance, it is not enough to

possess the truth. Case makers must also master the media.

When the prosecution presents a case in the courtroom, the defense is left
with three possible responses: it can declare, destroy, or distract. On rare
occasions, the defense declares a robust alternative theory to explain what
happened in a particular case. This is difficult, however, because it requires
the defense to substantiate its alternative scenario with evidence. In essence,
they’ve got to build their case the same way the prosecution has already
built a case against their client. More often than not, defense attorneys take
a different approach; they focus on destroying the prosecution’s case by

discrediting the evidence. If they can find legitimate shortcomings in the

individual pieces of evidence, they can undermine the prosecution’s case,
piece by piece. A third tactic is often just as effective in circumstantial
cases, however. Using the tactics we’ve discussed in this chapter, defense
lawyers can distract the jury from the cumulative impact of the

circumstantial evidence.

Lt me a ; Vg LOR Is
Truth ° fon fy ho. FE WEE pa can =< Mores / Important
Be Known Wig Cae once

ff Mi

The “Messengers
“Were Evil
There Is eS

Their Best Staff : PE
Is Inadmissible/ Z Vi vi

‘UG Entertain You

By attacking the nature of truth, targeting the foundation of the
prosecution’s case, focusing on the micro rather than the macro, disparaging
the prosecution’s witnesses, raising the expectation of perfection, offering
unsupported possibilities, and delivering all of this in a winsome way,
defense attorneys attempt to distract juries from the larger picture. They
don’t want the jury to see the forest through the trees. They don’t want the
jury to see the connected and reasonable nature of the cumulative
circumstantial case.

Those who oppose the claims of Christianity often take a very similar
approach. Like defense attorneys, they sometimes ignore the larger
connected nature of the case for Christianity and focus on possibilities and

claims that either are untrue or have no impact on the evidence.

=. A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE
Za#9} CHECKLIST

While the tactics of defense attorneys may not seem like tools appropriate
for your investigative callout bag, think of them as precautionary principles
for your checklist. If these tactics are inappropriate for defense attorneys,
they’re equally inappropriate for those of us who are presenting the claims
of Christianity. Let’s hold ourselves to a high standard, even as we require
our opponents to recognize their own reasonable responsibilities. It’s well
known that the “burden of proof” in criminal trials rests upon the
prosecution. Defendants are presumed innocent until found guilty; they are
under no obligation to mount any defense at all. But if, for example, a
defendant in a murder trial wants the jury to believe that he simply
committed the homicide in self-defense, the burden to raise this doubt falls
on the defense team. Skeptics have long claimed that the burden of proof
for the truth of the Christian worldview (e.g., the existence of God or the
deity of Jesus) belongs to Christians; naturalism is the default position that
need not be proved. That’s fine if they limit their resistance to destruction
or distraction tactics, but once they declare an alternative possibility (e.g.,
that Jesus is a re-creation of Mithras), the burden of raising this alternative
doubt clearly shifts. Possible alternatives are not reasonable refutations. If
they’re not offering a declaration that can be supported by evidence, they’re
probably attempting to destroy or distract. It’s my hope that my skeptical
friends will see the deficiencies of these two approaches. Destruction tactics
that try to disqualify the Gospels would also disqualify other historical
texts. If skeptics applied an equal standard to other documents of antiquity,
they would be hard pressed to believe anything about the ancient past. In

addition to this, any efforts to distract from the cumulative case for

Christianity by redefining truth or vilifying Christians, while potentially
effective, does nothing to demonstrate the truth of naturalism. I’ve known
many defense attorneys who worked hard because they truly believed that
their clients were innocent. I’ve known some who worked hard for other
reasons. I have skeptical friends who are in a similar position. Some reject
Christianity because they believe it is evidentially false, and they are
prepared to declare (and argue) an alternative case. On the other hand, some
reject Christianity for another reason (perhaps some past personal
experience or a desire to live their life without religious restrictions). When
this is the case, they often resort to destroy or distract tactics. Let’s help our
doubting friends examine the character of their objections. All of us ought
to be willing to argue the merits of our case without resorting to tactics
unbecoming of our worldviews.

While I grew up as an atheist, many of my Christian friends either grew
up in the church or lived in areas of the country where they met little or no
opposition to their Christian worldview. As a result, some were shaken
when they had their first encounter with someone who not only opposed
them but also did so tactically and winsomely. For some Christians, their
first encounter with atheistic opposition occurs at the university level, as
either a student or the parent of a student. The number of young Christians
who reject Christianity in college is alarming, according to nearly every
study that has been done on the topic. Part of this is a matter of preparation.
While we are often willing to spend time reading the Bible, praying, or
participating in church programs and services, few of us recognize the
importance of becoming good Christian case makers. Prosecutors are
successful when they master the facts of the case and then learn how to

navigate and respond to the tactics of the defense team. Christians need to

learn from that model as well. We need to master the facts and evidences
that support the claims of Christianity and anticipate the tactics of those
who oppose us. This kind of preparation is a form of worship. When we
devote ourselves to this rational preparation and study, we are worshipping
God with our mind, the very thing He has called us to do (Matt. 22:37).

CASE NOTES

30. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, quoted in Frederick Schauer,
Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University, 2009), 221.

Section 2

EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE

Applying the principles of investigation to the claims of the New Testament

I was lying in bed, staring at the ceiling.

“T think it may be true,” I said to my wife.

“What may be true?” she asked.

“Christianity.” I’m sure she was weary of my growing obsession. For
several weeks now, it was all I could think about, and I had already talked
her ears off on several occasions. She knew I was more serious about this
than I had ever been in the past, so she patiently tolerated my obsession and
constant conversation. “The more I look at the Gospels, the more I think
they look like real eyewitness accounts,” I continued. “And the writers
seem to have believed what they were writing about.”

I knew I was standing on the edge of something profound; I started
reading the Gospels to learn what Jesus taught about living a good life and
found that He taught much more about His identity as God and the nature of
eternal life. I knew that it would be hard to accept one dimension of His
teaching while rejecting the others. If I had good reasons to believe that the
Gospels were reliable eyewitness accounts, I was going to have to deal with
the stuff I had always resisted as a skeptic. What about all the miracles that
are wedged in there between the remarkable words of Jesus? How was I
going to separate the miraculous from the remarkable? And why was it that
I continued to resist the miraculous elements in the first place?

The initial step in my journey toward Christianity was an evaluation of
the Gospels. I spent weeks and weeks examining the gospel accounts as I
would any eyewitness account in a criminal case. I used many of the tools
that I’ve already described to make a decision that changed my life forever.

I’d like to share some of that investigation with you.

Q

Chapter 11.
WERE THEY PRESENT?

Ned

Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because,
frankly, I don’t know that it was. Our very first reference to Jesus’
tomb being empty is in the Gospel of Mark, written forty years

later by someone living in a different country who had heard that it

was empty. How would he know pal
—Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar, professor of religious studies, and author of

Jesus Interrupted

The so-called Gospel of John is something special and reflects ...

the highly evolved theology of a Christian writer who lived three

generations after Jesus.22

—Geza Vermes, scholar, historian, and author of The Changing Faces of Jesus

No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting,
or engraving, no sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may
be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence

of these gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter

part of the second century.22
—Charles Burlingame Waite, historian and author of History of the Christian Religion to

the Year Two Hundred

IF THE GOSPELS ARE LATE, THEY’RE A LIE

When I was a nonbeliever, I eagerly accepted the skeptical claims of people

like Ehrman, Vermes, and Waite. In fact, I often made similar statements

(although mine were much less articulate) as I argued with Christian friends
and coworkers at the police department. Like the skeptics quoted here, I
was inclined to reject the Gospels as late works of fiction. I considered
them to be mythological accounts written well after all the true
eyewitnesses were dead. They were late, and they were a lie.

I worked in our Gang Detail in the early 1990s and investigated a variety
of gang-related assaults. One of them involved a stabbing between members
of two rival gangs; both parties were armed with knives. It was hard to
determine which of the two gang members was actually the victim, as both
were pretty seriously injured and no eyewitnesses were willing to come
forward to testify about what really happened. About a year after the case
was assigned to me, I got a telephone call from a young woman who told
me that she witnessed the entire crime and was willing to tell me how it
occurred. She said that she had been deployed as a member of the army for
the past year, and, for this reason, she had been unaware that the case was
still unresolved. After a little digging, I discovered that this “eyewitness”
was actually a cousin of one of the gang members. After a lengthy
interview with her, she finally admitted that she was training in another
State at the time of the stabbing. She didn’t even hear about it until about a
week before she contacted me. She was lying to try to implicate the
member of the rival gang and protect her cousin. Clearly, her story was a
late piece of fiction, created long after the original event for the express
purpose of achieving her goal. She wasn’t even available or present at the
crime to begin with, and for this reason, she was worthless to me as a
witness.

As a Skeptic, I believed that the Gospels were penned in the second

century and were similarly worthless. If they were written that late, they

were not eyewitness accounts. It’s really as simple as that; true
eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus would have lived (and written) in the first
century. The first criterion of eyewitness reliability requires us to answer
the question “Were the alleged eyewitnesses present in the first place?”
Like the unbelieving scholars, I answered this question by arguing that the
Gospels were written in the second or third century, much closer to the
establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire than to the alleged life

of Jesus:

Gospel Writers

Life i Tae , he oF (ieee

(AD 1-33) (AD 350-363)

Before I could ever take the Gospels seriously as eyewitness accounts, I
needed to decide where they fell on this timeline. If the writers first
appeared toward the right (closer to the church councils and the formal
establishment of the Catholic Church), there was good reason to doubt that
they were true witnesses to the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 5:1) or that they
actually saw Jesus with their own eyes (1 John 1:1—3). If, on the other hand,
they appeared to the left of the timeline, I could at least begin to consider
them earnestly. The closer they appeared to the life and ministry of Jesus,

the more seriously I could consider their claims.

INCHING BACK ON THE TIMELINE

There are many pieces of circumstantial evidence that form a compelling

case for the early dating of the Gospels. There are several good reasons to

believe that the gospel writers are standing on the left side of the timeline.
The more I examined this evidence, the more I came to believe that the
Gospels were written early enough in history to be taken seriously as
eyewitness accounts. Let’s take a look at this evidence before we locate

each piece on the timeline.

7) THE NEW TESTAMENT FAILS TO DESCRIBE THE
“_ DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE

We begin with perhaps the most significant Jewish historical event of the

first century, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. Rome
dispatched an army to Jerusalem in response to the Jewish rebellion of AD

66. The Roman army (under the leadership of Titus) ultimately destroyed

the temple in AD 70,34 just as Jesus had predicted in the Gospels (in Matt.
24:1—3). You might think this important detail would be included in the
New Testament record, especially since this fact would corroborate Jesus’s
prediction. But no gospel account records the destruction of the temple. In
fact, no New Testament document mentions it at all, even though there are
many occasions when a description of the temple’s destruction might have

assisted in establishing a theological or historical point.

°<}p) THE NEW TESTAMENT FAILS TO DESCRIBE THE SIEGE
“7 OF JERUSALEM

Even before the temple was destroyed, the city of Jerusalem was under

assault. Titus surrounded the city with four large groups of soldiers and
eventually broke through the city’s “Third Wall” with a battering ram. After

lengthy battles and skirmishes, the Roman soldiers eventually set fire to the

city’s walls, and the temple was destroyed as a result.22 No aspect of this

three-year siege is described in any New Testament document, in spite of

the fact that the gospel writers could certainly have pointed to the anguish
that resulted from the siege as a powerful point of reference for the many

passages of Scripture that extensively address the issue of suffering.

°=)3) LUKE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE DEATHS OF PAUL AND
“+ PETER

Years before the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple,

another pair of events occurred that were significant to the Christian
community. The apostle Paul was martyred in the city of Rome in AD 64,
and Peter was martyred shortly afterward in AD 65.28 While Luke wrote
extensively about Paul and Peter in the book of Acts and featured them
prominently, he said nothing about their deaths. In fact, Paul was still alive

(under house arrest in Rome) at the end of the book of Acts.

ae py) LUKE SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE DEATH OF JAMES

*_> Luke featured another important figure from Christian history in the

book of Acts. James (the brother of Jesus) became the leader of the

Jerusalem church and was described in a position of prominence in Acts 15.

James was martyred in the city of Jerusalem in AD 62,34 but like the deaths
of Paul and Peter, the execution of James is absent from the biblical
account, even though Luke described the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7:54—60)
and James the brother of John (Acts 12:1-2).

} > LUKE’S GOSPEL PREDATES THE BOOK OF ACTS
#22 Luke wrote both the book of Acts and the gospel of Luke. These two

texts contain introductions that tie them together in history. In the

introduction to the book of Acts, Luke wrote:

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus
began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to
heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the
apostles whom He had chosen. (Acts 1:1—2)

It’s clear that Luke’s gospel (his “first account”) was written prior to the
book of Acts.

} >) PAUL QUOTED LUKE’S GOSPEL IN HIS LETTER TO

#5 TIMOTHY

Paul appeared to be aware of Luke’s gospel and wrote as though it was
common knowledge in about AD 63-64, when Paul penned his first letter to

Timothy. Note the following passage:

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double
honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is
threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Tim.
5:17-18)

Paul quoted two passages as “scripture” here—one in the Old Testament
and one in the New Testament. “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is
threshing” refers to Deuteronomy 25:4, and “The laborer is worthy of his
wages” refers to Luke 10:7. It’s clear that Luke’s gospel was already
common knowledge and accepted as scripture by the time this letter was
written. To be fair, a number of critics (like Bart Ehrman) have argued that
Paul was not actually the author of 1 Timothy and maintain that this letter

was written much later in history. The majority of scholars, however,

recognize the fact that the earliest leaders of the church were familiar with 1

Timothy at a very early date.38

ae py) PAUL ECHOED THE CLAIMS OF THE GOSPEL WRITERS

*S While some modern critics challenge the authorship of Paul’s

pastoral letters, even the most skeptical scholars agree that Paul is the
author of the letters written to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the
Galatians. These letters are dated between AD 48 and AD 60. The letter to
the Romans (typically dated at AD 50) reveals something important. Paul
began the letter by proclaiming that Jesus is the resurrected “Son of God.”
Throughout the letter, Paul accepted the view of Jesus that the gospel
eyewitnesses described in their own accounts. Just seventeen years after the
resurrection, Jesus was described as divine. He is God incarnate, just as the
gospel eyewitnesses described in their own accounts. In fact, Paul’s outline
of Jesus’s life matches that of the Gospels. In 1 Corinthians 15 (written
from AD 53 to 57), Paul summarized the gospel message and reinforced the

fact that the apostles described the eyewitness accounts to him:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that
He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according
to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the
twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren
at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen
asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and
last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1
Cor. 15:3-8)

In his letter to the Galatians (also written in the mid-50s), Paul described
his interaction with these apostles (Peter and James) and said that their

meeting occurred at least fourteen years prior to the writing of his letter:

But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb
and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in
me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not
immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to
Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away
to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years
later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas,
and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the
apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Gal. 1:15—-19)

Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to

Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. (Gal. 2:1)

This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the gospel
accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within five years of the
crucifixion (most scholars place Paul’s conversion from AD 33 to 36, and
he visited Peter and James within three years of his conversion, according
to Gal. 1:19). This is why Paul was able to tell the Corinthians that there
were still “more than five hundred brethren” who could confirm the
resurrection accounts (1 Cor. 15:6). That’s a gutsy claim to make in AD 53-
57, when his readers could easily have accepted his challenge and called

him out as a liar if the claim was untrue.

7 >) PAUL QUOTED LUKE’S GOSPEL IN HIS LETTER TO THE
A> CORINTHIANS

Paul also seems to have been familiar with the gospel of Luke when he
wrote to the Corinthian church (nearly ten years earlier than his letter to
Timothy). Notice the similarity between Paul’s description of the Lord’s

Supper and Luke’s gospel:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took
bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This
is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In
the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup
is the new covenant in My blood.” (1 Cor. 11:23—25)

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it
and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for
you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took
the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out
for you is the new covenant in My blood.” (Luke 22:19-20)

Paul appears to be quoting Luke’s gospel—the only gospel that has Jesus
saying that the disciples are to “do this in remembrance of Me.” If Paul is
trying to use a description of the meal that was already well known at the
time, this account must have been circulating for a period of time prior to

Paul’s letter.

} ;) LUKE QUOTED MARK (AND MATTHEW) REPEATEDLY

oe Luke, when writing his own gospel, readily admitted that he was not
an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus. Instead, Luke described
himself as a historian, collecting the statements from the eyewitnesses who

were present at the time:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the
things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to
us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having
investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out
for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that
you may know the exact truth about the things you have been
taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

As a result, Luke often repeated or quoted entire passages that were

offered previously by either Mark (350 verses from Mark appear in Luke’s

gospel) or Matthew (250 verses from Matthew appear in Luke’s account).22
These passages were inserted into Luke’s gospel as though they were
simply copied over from the other accounts. It’s reasonable, therefore, to
conclude that Mark’s account was already recognized, accepted, and

available to Luke prior to his authorship of the gospel.

25) MARK’S GOSPEL APPEARS TO BE AN EARLY “CRIME
# BROADCAST”

Mark’s gospel bears a striking resemblance to a “crime broadcast.” When

first-responding officers arrive at the scene of a crime, they quickly gather
the details related to the crime and the description of the suspect, then
“clear the air” with the radio dispatchers so they can broadcast these details
to other officers who may be in the area. This first crime broadcast is brief
and focused on the essential elements. There will be time later to add
additional details, sort out the order of events, and write lengthy reports.
This first broadcast is driven by the immediacy of the moment; we’ve got to

get the essentials out to our partners because the suspects in this case may

still be trying to flee the area. There is a sense of urgency in the first
broadcast because officers are trying to catch the bad guys before they get
away.

Although Mark’s gospel contains the important details of Jesus’s life and
ministry, it is brief, less ordered than the other gospels, and filled with
“action” verbs and adjectives. There is a sense of urgency about it. This is
what we might expect, if it was, in fact, an early account of Jesus’s ministry,
written with a sense of urgency. It is clear that the eyewitnesses felt this
urgency and believed that Jesus would return very soon. Paul wrote that
“salvation is nearer to us than when we believed” (Rom. 13:11), and James
said, “The coming of the Lord is near” (James 5:8). Peter, Mark’s mentor
and companion, agreed that “the end of all things is near” (1 Pet. 4:7).
Surely Mark wrote with this same sense of urgency as he penned Peter’s
experiences in his own gospel. Mark’s account takes on the role of “crime
broadcast,” delivering the essential details without regard for composition
or stylistic prose. Papias confirmed this in his statement about Mark’s

efforts:

Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down
accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered
of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord
nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who
adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no
intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses,
so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things
as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to
omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of

them falsely. 40

The accuracy of the account was more important to Mark than anything
else; for all Mark knew, Jesus would return before there would be any need
to write an ordered biography of sorts. Mark was in charge of the essential
crime broadcast. As the years passed and the eyewitnesses aged, others
made a more deliberate effort to place the narrative in its correct order.

Papias seems to indicate that this was Matthew’s intent:

Therefore Matthew put the /ogia in an ordered arrangement in the

Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he

could.4£

Luke also seems to be doing something similar according to the

introduction of his own gospel:

It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything
carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive
order. (Luke 1:3)

Both Matthew and Luke appear to be writing with a much different intent
than Mark. Their accounts are more robust and ordered. While Mark seems
to be providing us with the initial “crime broadcast,” Matthew and Luke are

more concerned about the “final report.”

i 7) MARK APPEARS TO BE PROTECTING KEY PLAYERS

+ We’ve already talked about how important it is to “hang on every

word.” In my years as an investigator, there have been many times when a
witness carefully chose his or her words to avoid dragging someone else
into the case. This was particularly true when working gang cases. There

were a number of times when a witness had the courage to come forward

with information, but was less than forthcoming about the identity of others
who might have seen something similar. Driven by the fear that these
additional witnesses might be in a position of jeopardy, the witness would
mention them in his or her account but refuse to specifically identify them.
Most of the time the witnesses were simply trying to protect someone who
they thought was defenseless and vulnerable.

I experienced just the opposite in some of my cold-case investigations.
When reinterviewing witnesses who spoke to investigators years earlier, I
found that they were now willing to provide me with the identities of people
whom they previously refused to identify. Sometimes this was because they
developed some animosity toward these people over the years; this was
especially true when boyfriends and girlfriends broke up and were
eventually willing to talk about each other. Sometimes it was a matter of
diminishing fear; when the suspect in a case died, it wasn’t unusual to have
people come forward and identify themselves simply because they were no
longer afraid to do so.

Many careful readers of Mark’s gospel have observed that there are a
number of unidentified people described in his account. These anonymous
characters are often in key positions in the narrative, yet Mark chose to
leave them unnamed. For example, Mark’s description of the activity in the
garden of Gethsemane includes the report that “one of those who stood by
[the arrest of Jesus] drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest
and cut off his ear” (Mark 14:47). Mark chose to leave both the attacker and
the man attacked unnamed in his description, even though John identified
both (Peter as the attacker and Malchus as the person being attacked) in his
gospel account. Similarly, Mark failed to identify the woman who anointed
Jesus at the home of Simon the leper (Mark 14:3—9), even though John told

us that it was Mary (the sister of Martha), who poured the perfume on

Jesus’s head.42 While skeptics have offered a number of explanations for
these variations (arguing, for example, that they may simply be late
embellishments in an effort to craft the growing mythology of the Gospels),
something much simpler might be at work. If Mark, like some of the
witnesses in my gang cases, was interested in protecting the identity of
Peter (as Malchus’s attacker) and Mary (whose anointing may have been
interpreted as a proclamation of Jesus’s kingly position as the Messiah), it
makes sense that he might leave them unnamed so that the Jewish
leadership would not be able to easily target them. In fact, Mark never even
described Jesus’s raising of Mary’s brother, Lazarus. This also makes sense
if Mark was trying to protect Lazarus’s identity in the earliest years of the
Christian movement, given that the resurrection of Lazarus was of critical
concern to the Jewish leaders and prompted them to search for Jesus in their
plot to kill him. If Mark wrote his gospel early, while Mary, Lazarus, Peter,
and Malchus were still alive, it is reasonable that Mark might have wanted
to leave them unnamed or simply omit the accounts that included them in
the first place.

Scholars generally acknowledge John’s gospel as the final addition to the
New Testament collection of gospel accounts. It was most likely written at a
time when Peter, Malchus, and Mary were already dead. John, like some of
the witnesses in my cold cases, had the liberty to identify these important

people; they were no longer in harm’s way.

ca THEY WERE EARLY ON THE TIMELINE
Given these eleven pieces of circumstantial evidence, what
reasonable inference can be drawn about the dating of the Gospels? First

we’ve got to account for the suspicious absence of several key historical

events in the New Testament record: the destruction of the temple, the siege
of Jerusalem, and the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James. These omissions can
be reasonably explained if the book of Acts (the biblical text that ought to
describe these events) was written prior to AD 61-62. These events are
missing from the accounts because they hadn’t happened yet.

We know from the introductory lines of the book of Acts that Luke’s
gospel was written prior to Acts, but we must use the remaining
circumstantial evidence to try to determine how much prior. The fact that
Paul echoed the description of Jesus that was offered by the gospel writers
is certainly consistent with the fact that he was aware of the claims of the
Gospels, and his quotations from Luke’s gospel in 1 Timothy and 1
Corinthians reasonably confirm the early existence of Luke’s account,
placing it well before AD 53-57. Paul was able to quote Luke’s gospel and
refer to it as scripture because it was already written, circulating at this
time, and broadly accepted. Paul’s readers recognized this to be true as they
read Paul’s letters.

Luke told us that he was gathering data from “those who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2). As a
result he either referred to or quoted directly from over five hundred verses
that are found in either the gospel of Mark or the gospel of Matthew. It is
reasonable to infer that these accounts were in existence prior to Luke’s
investigation. If this is the case, Mark’s gospel would date much earlier than
Luke’s, and can be sensibly placed in either the late 40s or very early 50s.
This then explains some of the characteristics we see in Mark’s gospel.
There appears to be a sense of urgency in the gospel, similar to the crime

broadcasts that are made by responding officers, and Mark appears to be

protecting key players in the account as if they were still alive at the time of
his writing.
Let’s place the evidence on the timeline to see where the gospel accounts

are located relative to the life of Jesus:

a, eek writes Luke writes Paul on aaa writes Deaths of James, Siege of ae

Lf fs J his gospel his gospel Peter, and Paul Jerusalem destroyed
(AD 4 33) AD 45-50 AD 50-53 AD 53-57 AD 60 AD 61-65 AD 6F-70 AD 70

The reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence is that the
Gospels were written very early in history, at a time when the original
eyewitnesses and gospel writers were still alive and could testify to what
they had seen. This is why Mark was careful not to identify key players and
Paul could reasonably point to five hundred living eyewitnesses who could
still testify to their observations of Jesus’s resurrection. While skeptics
would like to claim that the Gospels were written well after the alleged life
of the apostles and much closer to the councils that affirmed them, the

evidence indicates something quite different.

que
AY. aid

ye

Life of les ee: of ~e

(AD 1-33) (AD 363)

The circumstantial evidence supports an early dating for the Gospels. The

gospel writers appear in history right where we would expect them to

appear if they were, in fact, eyewitnesses. This early placement alone does
not ensure that the Gospels are reliable accounts, but it keeps them “in the
running” and becomes an important piece of circumstantial evidence, in and

of itself, as we determine the reliability of the gospel writers.

J) SO, WHY DO SOME CONTINUE TO DENY

S IT?
Some are still skeptical of the early dating of the Gospels, in spite of the
circumstantial evidence that supports such a conclusion. Many skeptics are
quick to embrace alternative explanations that place the Gospels so late in
history that they simply could not have been written by eyewitnesses. As
with any process of abductive reasoning, we need to examine the
alternative possibilities to see if any of them are reasonable (based on
evidence). Let’s examine some of the reasons why skeptics like Ehrman,
Vermes, and Waite claim that the Gospels were written either “forty years

9 66

later,” “three generations after Jesus,” or in “the latter part of the second

century.”

} 9) THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS ARE ANONYMOUS

eo Some have argued that the Gospels are late because none of the
authors specifically identifies himself in the accounts. This lack of
identification is seen as evidence that the accounts were not actually written
by anyone in the first century, but were falsely attributed to these authors

much later in an effort to legitimize the forgeries.

BUT...
The Gospels are not the only ancient documents that fail to identify the
author within the text of the manuscripts. Tacitus (the Roman senator and

historian who lived from AD 56 to AD 117) wrote a history of the Roman

Empire from the reign of Augustus Caesar to Nero entitled Annals. Tacitus
was, in fact, present during much of this period of time, but failed to include
himself in any of his descriptions or identify himself as the author. Like the
Gospels, the Annals are written anonymously yet are attributed to Tacitus
without reservation by historical scholars. Why? Because, like the Gospels,
Tacitus’s authorship is supported by external evidence (such as the claims
of other early writers who credited Tacitus with the work). The Gospels
were also attributed to their traditional authors quite early in history
(Papias, living in the late first century and early second century, is one such
example).

In fact, no one in antiquity ever attributed the Gospels to anyone other
than the four traditionally accepted authors. That’s a powerful statement, in
and of itself, especially considering the fact that early Christians
consistently recognized, identified, and condemned the false writings of
forgers who tried to credit false gospels to the apostolic eyewitnesses. The
Traditions of Matthias (AD 110-160), for example, was identified as a
forgery by early Christians and was eventually included in a list with other
forgeries (including the gospels of Thomas and Peter) by Eusebius, the
“Father of Church History.”

One might also wonder why, if these gospel accounts were falsely
attributed to the authors we accept today, the second- or third-century
forgers would not have picked better pseudonyms (false attributions) than
the people who were ultimately accredited with the writings. Why would
they pick Mark or Luke when they could easily have chosen Peter, Andrew,
or James? Mark and Luke appear nowhere in the gospel records as

eyewitnesses, so why would early forgers choose these two men around

which to build their lies when there were clearly better candidates available
to legitimize their work?

It’s not as if the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John have been
discovered in some ancient collection under someone else’s name. The only
copies we possess of these Gospels, regardless of antiquity or geographic
location, are attributed to one of the four traditional authors. No early
church leader has ever attributed these Gospels to anyone other than Mark,
Matthew, Luke, or John. There is no altermative ancient tradition that
claims, for example, that the gospel of Mark is actually written by anyone
other than Mark.

While it is possible that the Gospels were not written by the traditional
first-century authors and were given these attributions only much later in
history, it is not evidentially reasonable. If skeptics were willing to give the
Gospels the same “benefit of the doubt” they are willing to give other

ancient documents, the Gospels would easily pass the test of authorship.

f 3) THE TEMPLE DESTRUCTION IS PREDICTED

#_ while the absence of any description of the temple’s destruction can
reasonably be interpreted as a piece of circumstantial evidence supporting
the early dating of the New Testament accounts, skeptics sometimes use this
fact to make just the opposite case. Many have proposed that Jesus’s
prediction related to the destruction was inserted to legitimize the text and
make it appear that He had some prophetic power. If this was the case, the
Gospels would clearly date to after the event (post AD 70), as the writers

already knew the outcome before they cleverly inserted the prediction.

BUT ...

This sort of skepticism is clearly rooted in the presupposition we described
in chapter 1. If we begin from a position of philosophical naturalism (the
presumption that nothing supernatural is possible), we have no choice but to
describe the supernatural elements we find in the Gospels as lies. From a
naturalistic perspective, prophetic claims are impossible. The skeptic,
therefore, must find another explanation for Jesus’s prediction related to the
temple; critics typically move the date of authorship beyond the date when
the prophecy was fulfilled to avoid the appearance of supernatural
confirmation. But as we described earlier, a fair examination of the
evidence that supports supernaturalism must at least allow for the
possibility of supernaturalism in the first place. The naturalistic bias of
these critics prevents them from accepting any dating that precedes the
destruction of the temple in AD 70 and forces them to ignore all the
circumstantial evidence that supports the early dating.

When explaining why the destruction of the temple itself was not
included in the gospel record, skeptics have argued that the gospel writers
intentionally omitted the fulfillment to make the accounts look like they
were written early. But if this was the case, why were the gospel writers
unafraid to describe the fulfillment of prophecy in other passages in the
Gospels? Over and over again we see the fulfillment of Old Testament
messianic prophecies that are attributed to Jesus in one manner or another.
In addition to this, on several occasions Jesus predicted His own
resurrection. The gospel writers readily described the fulfillment of these
predictions in the resurrection accounts. Why would they be willing to
describe this aspect of fulfilled prophecy, but shy away from discussing the

destruction of the temple?

In addition, Luke freely admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the
events in his gospel. He told us from the onset that he was writing at some
point well after the events actually occurred, working as a careful historian.
Why not include the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple?
There was no reason to be shy here. Other Old Testament authors wrote
from a perspective that followed the events they described and were
unafraid to say so. Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, for example, repeatedly
reported on events that took place well before their written account; they
often wrote that the conditions they were describing continued from the
point of the event “to this day” (indicating the late point at which they were
actually writing). Why wouldn’t Luke take a similar approach to the
destruction of the temple, especially given the fact that he made no pretense
about writing as a historian?

While it is certainly possible that the Gospels were all written after the
destruction of the temple, it is not evidentially reasonable. In fact, the
primary motivation for denying the early authorship of the Gospels is
simply the bias against supernaturalism that leads skeptics to redate the

Scriptures to some point following the fulfillment of Jesus’s prophecy.

aN THE ACCOUNTS ARE REPLETE WITH MIRACULOUS

“> EVENTS

Many critics have also pointed to the presence of the miraculous to make a
case for late dating. Surely the miracles are works of fiction. If the gospel
accounts were written early, eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus would have
exposed these miracles as fictitious, right? Much of this critical analysis
comes from a literary discipline known as “form criticism.” Form critics
attempt to classify portions of Scripture on the basis of their literary “type,”

“pattern,” or “form.” Once these pieces are isolated within the larger

narrative, form critics attempt to explain their origin. In the case of the
Gospels, form critics have argued that the supernatural elements are
different from those parts of the narrative that can be trusted as accurate

»43 (T9 »44 ce »45

history. They explain the “paradigms, miracle stories,

»46

sayings,

and “legends as late additions inserted by local Christian communities
to make a particular theological case or to present Jesus as something more

than He was.

BUT ...
By now you probably recognize that the presupposition of naturalism (and
the bias against supernaturalism) is once again the impetus behind this
criticism. The form critics of history (a movement that was most popular in
the mid-twentieth century) simply rejected the possibility that any
description of a miracle could be factually true. It turns out that it was the
miraculous “content” of these passages, rather than their common literary
style or form, that caused critics to identify the verses they thought should
be removed or handled with suspicion. In fact, they often selected passages
that were very different from one another in terms of their stylistic forms.
Sometimes they identified passages that did not fit neatly into one of their
categories (or appeared to be a blend of more than one literary form), and
they often disagreed with one another about the identity of particular types
of literary forms and passages. They did agree on one thing, however:
passages that contain miraculous events were not to be taken seriously as
part of the original narrative.

These skeptics evaluate the gospel accounts with the assumption (based
on the presence of the miraculous) that Christians must have written them
in the second or third century, unafraid that their lies would be detected by

those who lived in the first century. This proposal ignores, of course, all the

evidence that supports an early dating for the New Testament documents. It
also assumes that the gospel accounts are false until proved true. This is just
the opposite approach we take with witness testimony when it is presented
in court. We ought to presume that witnesses are telling us the truth until we
discover otherwise, and the presence of the miraculous alone should not
cause us to believe that the gospel eyewitnesses were lying.

There is no evidence, aside from the existence of supernatural elements
within the gospel accounts, to support the assumption of late dating that
form critics have proposed. While the insertion of miraculous elements late
in history might be possible, it is not evidentially reasonable. Once again,
the primary motivation for denying the early authorship of the Gospels is

simply the bias against supernaturalism.

8) THERE WAS A SECOND-CENTURY BISHOP IN ANTIOCH
“- NAMED “THEOPHILUS”

Some have tried to argue that the “Theophilus” described by Luke in the
introduction to his gospel and the book of Acts was actually Theophilus, the
bishop of Antioch (who served in that city from approximately AD 169 to
183). They support this claim by pointing out that some ancient authorities
maintained that Luke originally came from this city, and the fact that
Theophilus of Antioch wrote a defense of Christianity that discussed the
canon of the New Testament (which, of course, would have included the
gospel of Luke). Skeptics who argue for this identification of Theophilus
also point to the opening sentence of Luke’s gospel, where Luke wrote,
“Many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished
among us.” Isn’t it possible that Luke was referring to the many late-
second-century heretical, false gospels (like the gospel of the Egyptians)

that caused Theophilus of Antioch to write his own defense in the first

place? If this is true, Luke’s gospel ought to be dated in the second century,
after the appearance of these heretical gospels and during the tenure of
Theophilus of Antioch.

BUT ...
Luke addressed Theophilus as “most excellent” in his gospel introduction.
This is a title of authority, indicating that Theophilus held a position of
leadership. If Theophilus were already in a position of lifetime Christian
leadership (governing the church of Antioch as a bishop and deserving of
Luke’s title), would he really know so little about the life of Jesus that Luke
would need to send him an account “in consecutive order” so he could
“know the exact truth about the things [he had] been taught”? Luke’s
introduction makes it sound as if Luke was in a position of greater
knowledge than Theophilus and seems completely inconsistent with the
possibility that Theophilus was someone already knowledgeable enough to
have ascended to such an important position of Christian leadership.

It does that

appear, however,

Theophilus was in some position of

leadership, given the way that Luke
Many have tried to identify addressed him. Are there any reasonable
“Theophilus.” While no one knows
the answer for sure, there are many
reasonable possibilities:

first-century explanations consistent

with the other pieces of circumstantial

He’s Every “Friend of God” evidence placing the gospel in the first

Some have observed that the word
Theophilus is Greek for “Friend of
God.” For this reason, they propose
that Luke wrote his works for all

century? Yes, in fact, there are. Luke

used the same “most excellent’ title

those who were friends of God and
interested in the claims of Jesus.

He’s a Roman Official

when addressing Felix (in Acts 24:3)
and Festus (in Acts 26:25), both of

whom were Roman officials. Theophilus

Since Luke uses the expression
“most excellent” only = when
addressing Roman officials, many
believe that Theophilus must have
held some similar Roman position.
Paul Maier, in his novel The Flames
of Rome, makes a case for Titus
Flavius Sabinus II as the person to
whom Luke wrote.

He’s a Jewish High Priest

Others have identified a pair of
Jewish high priests who lived in the
first century (Theophilus ben
Ananus or Mattathias ben
Theophilus), arguing that Luke’s
focus on the temple and Jewish
customs related to the Sadducees
could best be explained if one of
these two priests was his intended
audience.

may, therefore, have been a Roman
official of some sort. It’s interesting to
note that Luke did not use this title when
addressing Theophilus in the book of
Acts. This may reflect the fact that
Theophilus was serving a_ short-term
position in the Roman government
(rather than a lifetime position as a
bishop in Antioch). Perhaps Theophilus
began to serve his term of office during
the time when Luke was writing the
gospel. Such positions of leadership

were certainly available in the first-

century government of the Roman
Empire.

Roman officials of the first century aren’t the only reasonable candidates
for Theophilus’s identity. There were a number of Jewish leaders in the first
century who possessed the name, including Theophilus ben Ananus (the

Roman-appointed high priest of the Jerusalem temple between AD 37 and

AD 41).42 If this was, in fact, the Theophilus whom Luke was addressing,
it might explain why Luke began his gospel with a description of another
priest, Zechariah, and his activity in the temple. This might also explain
why Luke alone spent so much time writing about the way that Joseph and
Mary took Jesus to the temple following His days of purification and then
again when He was twelve years old. It might also explain why,
interestingly, Luke failed to mention Caiaphas’s role in the crucifixion of

Jesus (Caiaphas was Theophilus ben Ananus’s brother-in-law).

While it is possible that Luke was writing to Theophilus of Antioch late
in the second century, it is not evidentially reasonable. Even if we don’t
have enough evidence to identify the true Theophilus with precision, there
are some reasonable first-century explanations available, and the manner in
which Luke described Theophilus in Luke 1 is inconsistent with Theophilus
of Antioch.

yi) LUKE AGREED WITH MUCH OF WHAT JOSEPHUS
4_+ REPORTED

Some skeptics have examined the writings of Titus Flavius Josephus, the

first-century Roman-Jewish historian who lived from AD 37 to
approximately AD 100 and wrote about life in the area of Palestine,
including the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Josephus
wrote Antiquities of the Jews in the early 90s (AD 93-94). Critics cite a
number of similarities between Luke and Josephus and argue that Luke
actually used Josephus as a source for his own work. This, of course, would
place the date of Luke’s work sometime after the early 90s, perhaps even as

late as the early second century.

BUT...

The fact that Josephus mentioned historical details that are also described
by Luke (e.g., the census taken under Quirinius, the death of Herod
Agrippa, the identity of the tetrarch Lysanias, and the famine during the
reign of Claudius) does not necessarily mean that Luke was using Josephus
as his source. Josephus may, in fact, be referencing Luke’s work; both may
be referencing the work of someone who preceded them; or each may

simply be citing the facts of history independently. In any case, the dual

citations we see here ought to give us confidence that Luke’s record is
historically accurate.

If Luke was using Josephus as a source (in a manner similar to his use of
Mark or Matthew), why didn’t he quote Josephus? This would certainly be
consistent with his introductory proclamation that he was referencing other
sources to compile his history. Luke readily quoted Mark and inserted many
parallel accounts that are also found in Matthew’s record; why not quote or
mirror Josephus in a similar way? Luke never did this, however, and his
work demonstrates no similarity with Josephus’s literary style.

While it is certainly possible that Luke was borrowing from Josephus, it
is not evidentially reasonable. There are a number of unrelated pieces of
circumstantial evidence that point to an early date for Luke’s gospel, nearly
forty years prior to the work of Josephus. All the alleged evidence that
supports the claim that Luke referenced Josephus can also be used to defend
the claim that Josephus referenced Luke. The cumulative circumstantial
case for early dating can help us determine which of these possibilities is

the most reasonable.

THE MOST REASONABLE CONCLUSION

We can now employ some abductive reasoning as we try to determine
which explanation related to dating is the most sensible. Like our dead-
body scene described in chapter 2, we begin by listing all the evidence that
we’ve examined so far, including the evidence that has been identified by
skeptics. Next, we list the two possible explanations that might account for

this evidence:

A Zz > SpA OOo” SOFPESTFB >
ID

““oThe New Testament Fails to Describe the Temple Mikihne *
yy, The New Testament Fails to Describe the Siege of Jerusalem /}..
“Luke Says Nothing about the Death of Paul, Peter, or James,//7>—
-4yz,Luke’s Gospel Predates the Book of Acts '
?~ Paul Quotes Luke’s Gospel in His Letter to Timothy ,
i Paul Echoes the Claims of the Gospel Writers

y, Paul Quotes Luke’s Gospel in His Letter to the Corinthians
Luke Quotes Mark (and Matthew) Repeatedly
¥ Mark’s Gospel Appears to Be an Early “Crime Broadcast”
Mark Appears to Be Protecting Key Players a
\ The Authors of the Gospels Are Anonymous
\Wlhe Temple Destruction Is Predicted six
¥ithe Accounts Are Replete with Miraculous Events “yj
! There Was a 2nd-Century Bishop Named “Theophilus” _
(Luke Agrees with Much of What Josephus Reported ,

CSL NS iy Phe t
¥ CPt “4 e wy

Using the lifetime of the alleged eyewitnesses (the gospel writers) and the
destruction of the temple as a point of differentiation, the evidence can
allow for two possible inferences: either the Gospels were written prior to
the destruction of the temple (and during the span of time in which the
alleged eyewitnesses were alive), or the Gospels were written well after the
destruction of the temple and after the alleged eyewitnesses would have
been long in the grave. If we accept the first explanation, we can integrate
and embrace all the evidence without any contradiction or friction between
pieces. The second explanation may explain the last five pieces of evidence,
but has great difficulty (at best) explaining the first eleven. The inference
that the Gospels were written in the first century, prior to the destruction of
the temple (and during the lifetime of those who claimed to see Jesus), is
the best explanation. The explanation is feasible, straightforward, and
logical. It exhausts all the evidence we have assembled, and it is superior to
the alternative explanation. It meets the five criteria we established for
abductive reasoning; we can have confidence that we’ve arrived at the most

reasonable explanation.

THE GOSPELS PASS THE FIRST TEST

Juries are encouraged to evaluate eyewitnesses in the four categories we
described in chapter 4. They begin by making sure that witnesses were truly
present at the time of the crime. When evaluating the gospel writers, the
most reasonable inference from the evidence is an early date of authorship.
Does this mean that they are reliable? Not yet; there’s much more to
consider. But the Gospels have passed the first test; their testimony appears
early enough in history to confirm that the gospel writers were actually

present to see what they said they saw.

CASE NOTES

31. Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 177.

32. Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 2002), 8.

33. Charles Burlingame Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred (San
Diego: Book Tree, 2011), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 5080-5082.

34, Flavius Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus: Wars of the Jews, Antiquities of the Jews,
Against Apion, Autobiography, trans. William Whiston (Boston: MobileReference), Kindle edition,
Kindle locations 7243-7249.

35, Barbara Levick, Vespasian, Roman Imperial Biographies (New York: Routledge, 1999).

36, Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983),
commenting on Acts 28:31.

37. Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, Kindle locations 28589-28592.

38. Kenneth Berding, Polycarp of Smyrna’s View of the Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy, Vigiliae
Christianae 54, no. 4 (1999), 349-360.

39. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1984), Kindle edition, Kindle location 409.

40. Papias, quoted in Eusebius, “Church History,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, eds. Philip
Schaff and Henry Wallace (New York: Cosimo, 2007), 172-73.

41. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16, as translated by Bauckham in Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses, 222.

42. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Kindle location 3072.

43. Howard I. Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 155.

44, David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 184.

45. Marshall, New Testament Interpretation, 156.

46. Black and Dockery, New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, 184.

47. Mentioned by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (Unabridged Books, 2011), bk. 17, chap. 5, sec.
3

F
alk?
We

4

Chapter 12
WERE THEY CORROBORATED?

Ned

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and
product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of
honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless
pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for

me) change this.48

—Albert Einstein, father of modern physics

Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who
believes in the Garden of Eden story? If there is, strike here
(tapping his forehead) and you will hear an echo. Something is for

rent.42
—Robert Green Ingersoll, the nineteenth-century American political leader known as

“The Great Agnostic”

I think that the people who think God wrote a book called the Bible
are just childish.

—Bill Maher, comedian, television host, and political commentator

THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME SUPPORT

Christian Scripture is not merely a collection of proverbs or commandments
related to moral living, although the New Testament certainly contains these
elements. The Bible is a claim about history. Like other eyewitness
accounts, the Bible tells us that something happened in the past in a

particular way, at a particular time, with a particular result. If the accounts

are true, they are not merely “legends” or “childish” stories, even though
they may contain miraculous elements that are difficult for skeptics to
accept. It’s not surprising that those who reject the supernatural would
doubt those who claimed to see something miraculous. It’s also not
surprising that these skeptics would want miraculous claims to be
corroborated.

While there are times when an eyewitness is the only piece of evidence I
have at my disposal, most of my cases are buttressed by other pieces of
evidence that corroborate the eyewitness. I once had a case from 1982 in
which a witness (Aimee Thompson) claimed to see a murder suspect
(Danny Herrin) standing in the front yard of the victim’s house just minutes
before the murder took place. At the time of the original investigation,
Aimee identified Danny from a “six-pack photo lineup,” a series of six
photographs of men (complete strangers to Aimee), arranged in two rows in
a photo folder. Aimee did not know Danny personally, but she recognized
his face in the photo. She remembered that he was wearing a popular
concert T-shirt with a logo from the musical band Journey, announcing its
tour in support of the Escape album. In addition to this, she told me that the
man she observed stood in a peculiar way, hunched over just slightly as if
he had some sort of physical injury. I knew that Danny also had this unusual
posture and fit her description. Given this identification, I traveled out to
the city where Danny lived for an interview. When I spoke with Danny, he
denied that he was anywhere near the victim’s house. In fact, he claimed
that he wasn’t even in the same city as the victim on that particular day.
While it would have been nice to find some forensic evidence at the scene
that corroborated Aimee’s observations, this was unfortunately not the case.

The original investigators did, however, find a gas receipt in Danny’s car

that had been issued from a gas station on the day of the murder, just a
quarter mile from the victim’s house. In addition to this, I later interviewed
Danny’s sister; she told me that Danny mentioned stopping by to see the
victim on the day of the murder.

Now it’s true that the gas receipt and his sister’s statement alone would
not prove that Danny murdered the victim, but these two additional facts
did corroborate Aimee’s claims; if nothing else, her assertions were made
more reasonable by her observations of Danny’s unusual stance and these
additional supporting facts. There were two forms of corroboration working
here. First, there was corroboration that was internal to Aimee’s statement.
She described something that was true about the suspect (his stance), and
could not have been known by Aimee unless she was actually present as she
claimed. In addition to this internal evidence, there was also external
evidence that corroborated her claim. The gas receipt and Danny’s sister’s
Statement were independent of Aimee, but still supported her assertions.
Together, the internal and external evidence agreed with Aimee’s primary

claims as an eyewitness.

CORROBORATION FROM THE “INSIDE OUT”

As it turns out, there is similar corroboration available to us when we
examine the claims of the gospel accounts. Some of this corroboration is
internal (evidences from within the gospel documents that are consistent
with the claims of the text), and some is external (evidences that are
independent of the gospel documents yet verify the claims of the text).
Much has been written about the internal evidences that support the
reliability of the New Testament authors; scholars have studied the use of
language and Greek idioms to try to discover if the writing styles of each

author corroborate the New Testament claims related to the authors. Is

John’s use of language consistent with that of a first-century fisherman? Is
Luke’s language consistent with that of a first-century doctor? While these
exercises are interesting from a scholarly perspective, they did not pique my
investigative curiosity as a detective. Two areas of internal evidence,
however, did interest me as someone who has interviewed hundreds of

witnesses.

} >) THE GOSPEL WRITERS PROVIDED UNINTENTIONAL
‘> EYEWITNESS SUPPORT

As we discussed in chapter 4, one of the most important tasks for a

detective is to listen carefully when multiple eyewitnesses provide a
statement about what they observed at the scene of a crime. It’s my job to
assemble the complete picture of what happened at the scene. No single
witness is likely to have seen every detail, so I must piece together the
accounts, allowing the observations of one eyewitness to fill in the gaps that
may exist in the observations of another eyewitness. That’s why it’s so
important for eyewitnesses to be separated before they are interviewed.
True, reliable eyewitness accounts are never completely parallel and
identical. Instead, they are different pieces of the same _ puzzle,
unintentionally supporting and complementing each other to provide all the
details related to what really happened.

When I first read through the Gospels

{ More forensically, comparing those places

“Unintentional where two or more gospel writers were
Support” describing the same event, I was

There are many examples of immediately struck by the inadvertent
“undesigned coincidences” in the
gospel eyewitness accounts. Here
are a few more: other. The accounts puzzled together just

support that each writer provided for the

Question: Matthew 8:16

Why did they wait until evening to
bring those who needed healing?
Answer: Mark 1:21; Luke 4:31

Because it was the Sabbath.

Question: Matthew 14:1-—2

Why did Herod tell his servants that
he thought Jesus was John the
Baptist, raised from the dead?
Answer: Luke 8:3; Acts 13:1

Many of Jesus’s followers were from
Herod’s household.

Question: Luke 23:1-4

Why didn’t Pilate find a charge
against Jesus even though Jesus
claimed to be a King?

Answer: John 18:33-38

Jesus told Pilate that his kingdom
was not of this world.

the way one would expect from
independent eyewitnesses. When one
gospel eyewitness described an event
and left out a detail that raised a
question, this question was
unintentionally answered by another
gospel writer (who, by the way, often
left out a detail that was provided by the
This

interdependence between the accounts

first gospel writer).
could be explained in one of two ways.
It may have been that the writers worked
together, writing at precisely the same
time and location, to craft a clever lie so
subtle that very few people would even

notice it at all. The second possibility is

that the Gospels were written by different eyewitnesses who witnessed the
event and included these unplanned supporting details; they were simply
describing something that actually happened.

As someone who was new to the Bible, I began to investigate whether or
not anyone else had observed this phenomenon and found that a professor
of divinity named J. J. Blunt wrote a book in 1847 entitled Undesigned
Coincidences in the Writings of the Old and New Testament, an Argument of
Their Veracity; with an Appendix, Containing Undesigned Coincidences
between the Gospels and Acts, and Josephus. This was one of the first
books about the Bible I ever purchased. In his section related to the Gospels

and the book of Acts, Blunt identified the very same inadvertent parallel

passages I discovered when examining the Gospels forensically. Blunt
described the phenomenon as a series of “undesigned coincidences” and
identified over forty locations in the New Testament where this feature of
unintentional eyewitness support could be seen on the pages of Scripture.

Let me give you a few examples of what we are talking about here.

THE CALLING OF THE DISCIPLES
As someone unfamiliar with the Bible, the calling of Peter, Andrew, James,

and John seemed odd to me when I first read it in the gospel of Matthew:

Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two
brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother,
casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And He said to
them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. Going on from
there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and
John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending
their nets; and He called them. Immediately they left the boat and
their father, and followed Him. (Matt. 4:18-22)

That’s it? Jesus walked up and said, “Follow Me,” and they dropped
everything “immediately”? Who would do that? How did they even know
who Jesus was or if anything about Him was worthy of that kind of
dedication? If Matthew’s account was the only testimony available to us
(and for many communities in the ancient world, it was the only testimony
available, at least for a number of years), this would remain a mystery. I do
believe there is a clue in Matthew’s version of events (the mending of the
nets), but the questions raised by Matthew aren’t answered for us until we

hear from Luke:

Now it happened that while the crowd was pressing around Him
and listening to the word of God, He was standing by the lake of
Gennesaret; and He saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake;
but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their
nets. And He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and
asked him to put out a little way from the land. And He sat down
and began teaching the people from the boat. When He had
finished speaking, He said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water
and let down your nets for a catch.” Simon answered and said,
“Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing, but I will
do as You say and let down the nets.” When they had done this,
they enclosed a great quantity of fish, and their nets began to
break; so they signaled to their partners in the other boat for them
to come and help them. And they came and filled both of the boats,
so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell
down at Jesus’ feet, saying, “Go away from me Lord, for Iam a
sinful man!” For amazement had seized him and all his
companions because of the catch of fish which they had taken; and
so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners
with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not fear, from now on
you will be catching men.” When they had brought their boats to
land, they left everything and followed Him. (Luke 5:1—11)

The disciples didn’t just jump in with Jesus on a whim after all. Matthew
was interested in describing how the disciples were called, but Luke was
interested in providing a bit more detail. When the testimony of all the
witnesses is considered in unison, we get the complete picture. The

disciples heard Jesus preach and saw the miracle of the abundant catch of

fish. This harvest of fish was so impressive and large that it broke their nets.
Only after returning to the shore (and while James and John were mending
their torn nets) did Jesus call them to follow Him. They left their lives as
fishermen on the basis of the things Jesus taught and the miracle Jesus

performed.

THE STRIKING OF JESUS

In the next example, let’s examine the description of Jesus’s beating that
Matthew offered in chapter 26 of his gospel. In this scene, describing
Jesus’s examination before Caiaphas, Matthew told us that the chief priests
and the members of the council struck Jesus and slapped Him when he

“blasphemed” by identifying Himself as the “Son of Man”:

Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others
slapped Him, and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the
one who hit You?” (Matt. 26:67—-68)

This question posed by members of

f y More the council seems odd. Jesus’s attackers
“Unintentional were standing right in front of Him; why
Support” would they ask Him, “Who is the one

There are many examples of who hit You?” It doesn’t seem like much
“undesigned coincidences” in the

. of a challenge, given that Jesus could
gospel eyewitness accounts. Here

are a few more: look at His attackers and identify them
Question: Matthew 26:71 easily. Luke told us more, however:

Why did the maid notice Peter?

Ri aneeeiohn Tab Now the men who were holding

A disciple spoke with her when he Jesus in custody were mocking Him
brought Peter inside.

and beating Him, and they
Question: Mark 15:43

Why did Mark say Joseph of

blindfolded Him and were asking
Arimathea acted “boldly” (NIV)?

Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the
Answer: John 19:38 ng Pp y

Joseph was previously a_ secret
disciple who was in fear of the Jews. saying many other things against

Him, blaspheming. (Luke 22:63-65)

one who hit You?” And they were

Once again, one gospel eyewitness unintentionally supported the other in
what J. J. Blunt called an “undesigned coincidence.” Matthew’s narrative
makes sense once we read in Luke’s account that Jesus was blindfolded.
Imagine for a moment that you are one of the earliest converts to
Christianity, at a time and place in history where the gospel of Matthew was
the only available account (in chapter 13, for example, we’ll hear a report of
the gospel of Matthew used in the early days of Christianity to teach new
believers east of Africa). This passage would be puzzling; it would raise a
question that might never be answered unless you had access to the other
eyewitness accounts. As a cold-case detective, I’ve experienced something
similar to this a number of times. Often, questions an eyewitness raises at
the time of the crime are left unanswered until we locate an additional
witness years later. This is a common characteristic of true, reliable

eyewitness accounts.

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND

Perhaps the finest example of unintentional support is found in an episode
described in all four gospels: the miracle of the “feeding of the five
thousand.” Mark’s account of this miracle raises a question when
considered without input from the other gospel writers. Mark wrote that just

prior to this event, Jesus sent out the disciples to preach repentance in the

local towns and villages. When they returned, they found themselves

surrounded by a multitude of people:

The apostles gathered together with Jesus; and they reported to
Him all that they had done and taught. And He said to them,
“Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a while.”
(For there were many people coming and going, and they did not
even have time to eat.) They went away in the boat to a secluded
place by themselves. The people saw them going, and many
recognized them and ran there together on foot from all the cities,
and got there ahead of them. When Jesus went ashore, He saw a
large crowd, and He felt compassion for them because they were
like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many
things. When it was already quite late, His disciples came to Him
and said, “This place is desolate and it is already quite late; send
them away so that they may go into the surrounding countryside
and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” But He
answered them, “You give them something to eat!” And they said
to Him, “Shall we go and spend two hundred denarii on bread and
give them something to eat?” And He said to them, “How many
loaves do you have? Go look!” And when they found out, they
said, “Five, and two fish.” And He commanded them all to sit
down by groups on the green grass. They sat down in groups of
hundreds and of fifties. And He took the five loaves and the two
fish, and looking up toward heaven, He blessed the food and broke
the loaves and He kept giving them to the disciples to set before
them; and He divided up the two fish among them all. They all ate
and were satisfied, and they picked up twelve full baskets of the

broken pieces, and also of the fish. There were five thousand men
who ate the loaves. (Mark 6:30-44)

According to Mark, many people were coming and going in the area,
even before Jesus and His disciples became the focal point of this crowd.
Why was this crowd in the area in the first place? Mark never said. The
question Mark’s account raised isn’t answered until we hear John’s

testimony:

After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of
Galilee (or Tiberias). A large crowd followed Him, because they
saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick.
Then Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat down with
His disciples. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.
Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd
was coming to Him, said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so
that these may eat?” This He was saying to test him, for He
Himself knew what He was intending to do. Philip answered Him,
“Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for
everyone to receive a little.” One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon
Peter’s brother, said to Him, “There is a lad here who has five
barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many
people?” Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was
much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about
five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks,
He distributed to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish
as much as they wanted. When they were filled, He said to His

disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be

lost.” So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with
fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those
who had eaten. (John 6:1—13)

John answered the question raised by Mark. The large crowd was the
result of two circumstances: First, John alone told us that the people
searched for Jesus because they knew He had been performing miraculous
healings. Second, John alone said that it was nearly Passover, the holy
Jewish holiday that caused thousands to travel through this area to arrive at
Jerusalem for the celebration. While Mark mentioned the crowd, only John
told us why it was there in the first place. But in unintentionally answering
the question raised by Mark, John raised an unanswered question of his
own. John’s account mentioned Philip and Andrew specifically. This stood
out to me, only because the use of pronouns and proper names is an
important focus of Forensic Statement Analysis. Andrew and Philip are not
major characters in the Gospels; the gospel writers seldom mention them,
especially when compared with Peter, John, and James. For this reason,
their appearance here raises a couple of questions. Why did Jesus ask Philip
where they ought to go to buy bread? Why did Andrew get involved in the
answer? In addition to this, John also mentioned a detail that was not found
in Mark’s briefer account. John said that the disciples fed the crowd “barley
loaves.” John also repeated Mark’s testimony that there was “much grass”
in the area. In order to make sense of the questions John raised and the role
of the grass and the barley, let’s finish with an examination of Luke’s

account:

When the apostles returned, they gave an account to Him of all
that they had done. Taking them with Him, He withdrew by Himself

to a city called Bethsaida. But the crowds were aware of this and
followed Him; and welcoming them, He began speaking to them
about the kingdom of God and curing those who had need of
healing. Now the day was ending, and the twelve came and said to
Him, “Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding
villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to
eat; for here we are in a desolate place.” But He said to them,
“You give them something to eat!” And they said, “We have no
more than five loaves and two fish, unless perhaps we go and buy
food for all these people.” (For there were about five thousand
men.) And He said to His disciples, “Have them sit down to eat in
groups of about fifty each.” They did so, and had them all sit
down. Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking
up to heaven, He blessed them, and broke them, and kept giving
them to the disciples to set before the people. And they all ate and
were satisfied; and the broken pieces which they had left over were
picked up, twelve baskets full. (Luke 9:10-17)

Luke is the only one who told us that this event occurred when Jesus
withdrew to the city of Bethsaida. This revelation unlocks the mystery of
Philip and Andrew’s prominence in John’s testimony; they were both from
Bethsaida (according to John 1:44). We learned this detail not from Luke
(who told us that the miracle occurred in Bethsaida) but from John (who
mentioned it without any connection to the miracle). Jesus asked Philip
about sources for the bread because He knew that Philip was from this part
of the country. Philip and Andrew naturally tried their best to respond,

given that they were uniquely qualified to answer Jesus’s question.

What about the grass and barley? Why were these details included in the
narrative? Are they consistent with what eyewitnesses might have actually
seen or experienced? As it turns out, the Passover occurred at a time (in

April) that followed five of the rainiest months for the area of Bethsaida. In

addition to this, the Passover occurred at the end of the barley harvest.22
These meaningless details are just what I would expect to hear from
eyewitnesses who were simply describing what they saw, including the

details that don’t really matter in the larger narrative.

<p) THE GOSPEL WRITERS REFERENCED NAMES
“3 CORRECTLY

When I interview eyewitnesses, I listen carefully to their descriptions of the

suspect and the environment in which the crime took place. Their
observations of the scene, if they are genuine, should reflect the true nature
of the time and location of the crime. When Aimee told me about her
observations of the suspect in 1982, she described a Journey concert shirt
that promoted an album (Escape) that was released in 1981. The description
of the shirt was consistent with the time frame of the murder. If Aimee had
described a shirt that was unavailable until 1990, for example, I would have
been concerned that her statement was either inadvertently inaccurate or
deliberately false.

Something similar can be observed in

ae | The the gospel accounts. The gospel writers
* Corroboration of are believed to have written from a
Language number of geographic locations. Mark

The gospel writers did more than probably wrote from Rome, Matthew
correctly cite the popular names of
first-century Palestinian Jews. They
also appear to have writteninastyle either Antioch or Rome, and John from

may have written from Judea, Luke from

that was similar to those who lived at
that time. Nonbiblical scraps of
papyrus and pottery from the first
century provide us with samples of
the form of Greek that was popular
in the ancient Middle East. The
Greek used by the gospel writers is

Ephesus.2£ Skeptics have argued that

these accounts were not written by
people who had firsthand knowledge of

the life and ministry of Jesus but were

very similar to the vernacular
“common” Greek that was used by
others who lived in this region at this
time in history. (For more details,
refer to The New _ Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? by
F. F. Bruce.)

simply inventions written generations
later by people who weren’t all that
familiar with the locations they were
describing. All of the gospel writers
described a large number of people as
they wrote out their testimonies, and often identified these individuals by
name. As it turns out, these names provide us with important clues to help
us determine if the writers of the Gospels were actually familiar with life in
first-century Palestine.

Richard Bauckham22 examined the work of Tal Tlan23 and used Ilan’s

data when investigating the biblical use of names. Ilan assembled a lexicon
of all the recorded names used by the Jews of Palestine between 330 BC
and AD 200. She examined the writings of Josephus, the texts of the New
Testament, documents from the Judean desert and Masada, and the earliest
rabbinic works of the period. She even examined ossuary (funeral-tomb)
inscriptions from Jerusalem. Ilan included the New Testament writings in
her study as well. She discovered that the most popular men’s names in
Palestine (in the time span that encompassed the gospel accounts) were
Simon and Joseph. The most popular women’s names were Mary and
Salome. You may recognize these names from the gospel accounts. As it
turns out, when Bauckham examined all the names discovered by Ilan, he
found that the New Testament narratives reflect nearly the same percentages

found in all the documents Ilan examined:

Popularity of Names Cited in Palestinian Popularity of Names Cited by the New
Literature of the Time Testament Authors

18.2% of the men had the name Simon or

15.6% of the men had the name Simon or Joseph
Joseph

41.5% of the men had one of the nine most popular 40.3% of the men had one of the nine most
names popular names

7.9% of the men had a name no one else had 3.9% of the men had a name no one else had

0,
28.6% of the women had the name Mary or Salome 38:976:01 He WOMEN Nat Me Mame Mary Or

Salome
49.7% of the women had one of the nine most 61.1% of the women had one of the nine most
popular names popular names

9.6% of the women had aname no one else had 2.5% of the women had a name no one else had

54

The most popular names found in the Gospels just happen to be the most
popular names found in Palestine in the first century. This is even more
striking when you compare the ancient popular Palestinian Jewish names

with the ancient popular Egyptian Jewish names:

Top Jewish Men’s Names in Palestine Top Jewish Men’s Names in Egypt

Simon Eleazar
Joseph Sabbataius
Eleazar Joseph

Judah Dositheus

Yohanan Pappus
Joshua Ptolemaius

If the gospel writers were simply guessing about the names they were
using in their accounts, they happened to guess with remarkable accuracy.
Many of the popular Jewish names in Palestine were different from the

popular names in Egypt, Syria, or Rome. The use of these names by the

gospel writers is consistent with their claim that they were writing on the

basis of true eyewitness familiarity.

When names are very common, people find themselves having to make a

distinction by adding an extra piece of information. My name is Jim

Wallace, but I am often confused with Jim Wallis, the founder and editor of

Sojourners magazine. For this reason, I will sometimes add the additional

descriptor “of PleaseConvinceMe.com” when describing myself. I am Jim

Wallace “of PleaseConvinceMe.com” (as opposed to Jim Wallis “of

Sojourners”).

|The
kt Corroboration of
Location

The gospel writers were evidently
extremely familiar with the locations
they wrote about. While late
noncanonical forgeries written from
outside the area of Palestine seldom
mention any city other than
Jerusalem (the one famous city that
everyone knew was in Israel), the
gospel writers alone included the
specific names of lesser first-century
towns and villages. The gospel
writers mentioned or described
Aenon, = Arimathea, Bethphage,
Caesarea Philippi, Cana, Chorazin,
Dalmanutha, Emmaus, Ephraim,
Magadan, Nain, Salim, and Sychar.
Some of these villages are so
obscure that only people familiar
with the area would even know they
existed.

When you see the addition of a
descriptor, you can be sure that the name
being amended is probably common to
the region or time in history. We see this
throughout the gospel accounts. The
gospel writers introduce us to Simon
“Peter,” Simon “the Zealot,” Simon “the
Tanner,” Simon “the Leper,” and Simon
“of Cyrene.” The name Simon was so
common to the area of Palestine in the
first century that the gospel writers had
to add descriptors to differentiate one
Simon from another. This is something
we would expect to see if the gospel
writers were truly present in Palestine in
the first century and familiar with the

common names of the region (and the

need to better describe those who possessed these popular names).

Jesus (Hebrew: Joshua) was one of these popular first-century names in
Palestine, ranking sixth among men’s names. For this reason, Jesus was one
of those names that often required an additional descriptor for clarity’s sake.
Interestingly, the gospel writers themselves (when acting as narrators)
didn’t use additional descriptors for Jesus, even though they quoted
characters within the narrative who did. Matthew, for example, repeatedly
referred to Jesus as simply “Jesus” when describing what Jesus did or said.
But when quoting others who used Jesus’s name, Matthew quoted them
identifying Jesus as “Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee,” “Jesus the Galilean,”
“Jesus of Nazareth,” “Jesus who was called Christ,” “Jesus who was
crucified.” Why the difference? Matthew, as the narrator of history, simply
called Jesus by His first name over the course of many chapters. His readers
were already familiar with the person of Jesus Matthew introduced early in
his account. But Matthew accurately recorded the way we would expect
people to identify Jesus in the context of the first century. Matthew appears
to be acting merely as an eyewitness recorder of facts, limiting himself to
“Jesus” when he is doing the talking, but accurately reporting the way he
heard others refer to Jesus.

The manner in which the gospel writers described details (unintentionally
supporting one another) and the approach the gospel writers took when they
referred to people (using the names and descriptors we would expect in
first-century Palestine) corroborate their testimonies internally. The gospel
accounts appear authentic from the “inside out.” The words of the Gospels

themselves are consistent with what we would expect from eyewitnesses.

CORROBORATION FROM THE “OUTSIDE IN”

If the Gospels are true, we should also expect them to be corroborated
externally as well. Aimee’s testimony, for example, was corroborated by
two additional pieces of evidence (the discovery of the gas receipt and the
testimony of Danny’s sister). The Gospels are similarly corroborated from
the “outside in” by the testimony of witnesses who reported what they knew
to be true, even though they were not Christians and did not necessarily
believe the testimony of the gospel writers. These non-Christian
eyewitnesses were often hostile to the growing Christian movement and
critical of the claims of the Gospels. In spite of this, they affirmed many of
the details that were reported by the gospel writers.

As a cold-case detective, I’ve encountered this sort of thing many times. I
once had a case with a victim who was killed in her condominium. The
primary suspect in her murder originally denied ever being in her home. I
interviewed him a second time and told him that we discovered his DNA
was in the house, in the very room where the victim was murdered. He
changed his story and told me that he remembered that the victim called
him and asked him to come over to the house to help her move some boxes
from this room to her garage. The suspect said he came over on the day of
the murder and was in the victim’s room for a very short time to help her
move these boxes. He still denied being involved in her murder, however.
Although he continued to deny his involvement in the crime, his new
statement included two reluctant admissions. The suspect now admitted to
the fact that he had been in the room where the murder occurred and on the
very day when the victim was killed. While he still denied the fact that he
committed the crime, he reluctantly admitted important facts that would
eventually be assembled with other pieces of circumstantial evidence to

form the case against him.

-. NONBIBLICAL EYEWITNESSES CORROBORATED THE
YoY GOSPELS

In a similar way, ancient observers and writers who were hostile to

Christianity reluctantly admitted several key facts that corroborate the
claims of the Christian eyewitnesses, even though they denied that Jesus
was who He claimed to be. Let’s examine some of these reluctant

admissions and reconstruct the picture they offer of Jesus.

JOSEPHUS (AD 37-CA. 100) DESCRIBED JESUS

Josephus described the Christians in three separate citations in his
Antiquities of the Jews. In one of these passages, Josephus described the
death of John the Baptist, in another he mentioned the execution of James
(the brother of Jesus), and in a third passage he described Jesus as a “wise
man.” There is controversy about Josephus’s writing because early
Christians appear to have altered some copies of his work in an effort to
amplify the references to Jesus. For this reason, as we examine Josephus’s
passage related to Jesus, we will rely on a text that scholars believe escaped
such alteration. In 1971, Shlomo Pines, scholar of ancient languages and
distinguished professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published a
long-lost tenth-century Arabic text written by a Melkite bishop of
Hierapolis named Agapius. This Arabic leader quoted Josephus and did so
in the Arabic language, unlike the Greek used by other authors from
antiquity. Overtly Christian references that are seen in other ancient
versions of Josephus’s account are also missing from Agapius’s quote, and
as aresult, scholars believe that this version best reflects Josephus’s original

text:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His
conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many
people from among the Jews and the other nations became his
disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And
those who had become his disciples did not abandon his
discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three
days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he
was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have

recounted wonders.22

There are many other ancient versions of Josephus’s citation that are
more explicit about the nature of Jesus’s miracles, His life, resurrection, and
status as “the Christ,” but this brief and conservative version of Josephus’s
text reluctantly admits a number of key facts about Jesus. From this text, we
can conclude that Jesus lived, was a wise and virtuous teacher who
reportedly demonstrated wondrous power, was condemned and crucified
under Pilate, had followers who reported that He appeared to them after His

death on the cross, and was believed to be the Messiah.

THALLUS (CA. AD 5—60) DESCRIBED JESUS

Thallus was a Samaritan historian who wrote an expansive (three-volume)
account of the history of the Mediterranean area in the middle of the first
century, only twenty years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Like the writings of
many ancient historians, much of his work is now lost to us. Another
historian, Sextus Julius Africanus, wrote a text entitled History of the World
in AD 221, however, and Africanus quoted an important passage from

Thallus’s original account. Thallus chronicled the alleged crucifixion of

Jesus and offered an explanation for the darkness that was observed at the

time of Jesus’s death. Africanus briefly described Thallus’s explanation:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the
rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and
other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the
third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason,

an eclipse of the sun.22

It’s a pity that we don’t have the complete account and explanation from
Thallus, but in offering an explanation for the darkness, Thallus “reluctantly
admitted” important details that corroborated portions of the Gospels. Even
though Thallus denied that the darkness at the point of the crucifixion was
caused supernaturally, he inadvertently corroborated the claim that Jesus
was indeed crucified and that darkness covered the land when He died on

the cross.

TACITUS (AD 56—CA. 117) DESCRIBED JESUS

Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical
documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a
senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his
Annals of AD 116, he described Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire

in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from
whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during

the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius

Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the
moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the
evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful

from every part of the world find their centre and become

popular.22 (Annals, 15:44)

Tacitus, in describing Nero’s actions and the presence of the Christians in
Rome, reluctantly admitted several key facts related to the life of Jesus.
Tacitus corroborated that Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius

Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Him.

MARA BAR-SERAPION (AD 70-UNKNOWN) DESCRIBED JESUS

Sometime after AD 70, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion,
writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus
with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The
fact that Mara Bar-Serapion described Jesus as a real person with this kind

of influence is important:

What advantage did the Athenians

gain from putting Socrates to death?

Famine and plague came upon them
The Jewish Talmud (the writings and
discussions of ancient rabbis) dates
to the fifth century, but is thought to
contain the ancient teachings from

as a judgment for their crime. What

advantage did the men of Samos

the early Tannaitic period from the
first and second centuries. Many of
the Talmudic writings reference
Jesus:

‘Jesus practiced magic and led
Israel astray” (b. Sanhedrin 43a; ct.
t. Shabbat 11.15; b. Shabbat 104b).

gain from burning Pythagoras? In a
moment their land was covered with
sand. What advantage did the Jews
gain from executing their wise
King? It was just after that that their
kingdom was abolished. God justly

“Rabbi Hisda (d. 309) said that
Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba_ said,
‘What is that which is written, “No
evil will befall you, nor shall any
plague come near your house”?
(Psalm 91:10).... “No evil will befall
you” (means) that evil dreams and
evil thoughts will not tempt you; “nor
shall any plague come near your
house” (means) that you will not
have a son or a disciple who burns
his food like Jesus of Nazareth” (b.
Sanhedrin 103a; cf. b. Berakhot
17D).

“It was taught: On the day before the
Passover they hanged Jesus. A
herald went before him for forty days
(proclaiming), ‘He will be stoned,
because he practiced magic and
enticed Israel to go astray. Let
anyone who knows anything in his
favor come forward and plead for
him.’ But nothing was found in his
favor, and they hanged him on the
day before the Passover” (b.
Sanhedrin 43a).

From just these passages that
mention Jesus by name, we can
conclude that Jesus had magical
powers, led the Jews away from
their beliefs, and was executed on
the day before the Passover.

avenged these three wise men: the
Athenians died of hunger; the
Samians were overwhelmed by the
sea; the Jews, ruined and driven
from their land, live in complete
dispersion. But Socrates did not die
for good; he lived on in the teaching
of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for
good; he lived on in the statue of
Hera. Nor did the wise King die for

good; He lived on in the teaching

which He had given.28

Although Mara Bar-Serapion does not
seem to place Jesus in a position of
preeminence (he simply lists Him
alongside other historic teachers like
Socrates and Pythagoras), Mara Bar-
Serapion does admit several key facts.
At the very least, we can conclude that

Jesus was a wise and influential man

who died for His beliefs. We can also conclude that the Jews played a role

in Jesus’s death and that Jesus’s followers adopted and lived lives that

reflected Jesus’s beliefs.

PHLEGON (AD 80-140) DESCRIBED JESUS

In a manner similar to his citation of Thallus, Sextus Julius Africanus also

wrote about a historian named Phlegon who penned a record of history in

approximately AD 140. In his historical account, Phlegon also mentioned

the darkness surrounding the crucifixion:

Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon,

there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the

ninth.22

Origen, the Alexandrian-bom, early church theologian and scholar, also
cited Phlegon several times in a book he wrote in response to the criticism

of a Greek writer named Celsus:

Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his
Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future
events (although falling into confusion about some things which
refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the
result corresponded to his predictions. So that he also, by these
very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will,
expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our
system were not devoid of divine power.

And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in
whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great
earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has
written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.

He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were
an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages
made our defence [sic], according to our ability, adducing the
testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at

the time when our Saviour suffered.22

Although Phlegon was not a follower of Jesus and denied many of the
claims of the gospel writers, his statements did reluctantly admit that Jesus
had the ability to accurately predict the future and was crucified under the

reign of Tiberius Caesar.

These late first-century and early second-century writers were not friends
of Christianity. In fact, they were largely indifferent to the fledgling
Christian movement. In spite of this, they all provided important
corroborating details of Jesus’s life, even if they did so reluctantly. If all the
Christian documents had been destroyed, we would still be able to
reconstruct a modest description of Jesus from these writers.

The ancient (and “reluctant”) nonbiblical description of Jesus would
include the fact that Jesus was a true historical person and a virtuous, wise
man who worked wonders, accurately predicted the future, and taught His
disciples. His teaching drew a large following of both Jews and Gentiles;
He was identified as the “Christ,” believed to be the Messiah, and widely
known as the “Wise King” of the Jews. His disciples were eventually called
Christians. His devoted followers became a threat to the Jewish leadership,
and as a result, these leaders presented accusations to the Roman
authorities. Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus to crucifixion during the reign
of Tiberius Caesar. A great darkness descended over the land when Jesus
was crucified, and an earthquake shook a large region surrounding the
execution. Following his execution, a “mischievous superstition” spread

about Him from Palestine to Rome.

Lived in Judea
A Virtuous Man
Had Wondrous Power
Could Predict the Future
Was “Wise King” of the Jews
Accused by Jewish Leaders
iz Crucified by Pilate
a During Reign of Tiberius
Y Darkness and Earthquake
{ Reportedly Rose after Death

vi
44 44
Lehi
iA YY ms
YY A —_
iby ,
<a
Ae a 1
-
ae

a Ke ay et
PAIN

= \ G yy \ ( 5 y

ee

ap NS er Believed to Be the Messiah
“la . Called the Christ
Followers Called Christians
A “Superstition” Spread

This description of Jesus, although incomplete, is remarkably similar to
the description offered by the gospel writers. Early, external, non-Christian

sources corroborate the testimony of the New Testament authors.

}@) ARCHAEOLOGY CONTINUES TO CORROBORATE THE
“> GOSPELS

Because Christianity makes historical claims, archaeology ought to be a

tool we can use to see if these claims are, in fact, true. The archaeological
efforts of the past two centuries have confirmed several details that skeptics
used to highlight as areas of weakness in the case for Christianity. There are
a large number of biblical passages that are now corroborated by both
ancient non-Christian witnesses and archaeological evidence. Here are just

a few:

QUIRINIUS HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary
, Other Significant returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian

tw" Archaeological governor named Quirinius was
Corroborations conducting a census (Luke 2:1-3).
ene Josephus confirmed the existence of this

In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, governor, but Josephus recorded

“Erastus, the city treasurer greets ae .
you.” A piece of pavement was Quirinius’s governorship from AD 5 to

discovered in Corinth in 1929

confirming his existence.

Iconium

In Acts 13:51, Luke described this
city in Phrygia. Some ancient writers
(like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was
located in Lycaonia, rather than
Phrygia, but a monument was
discovered in 1910 that confirmed

AD 6.24 This period of time is too late,
however, as Matthew wrote that Jesus
was born during the reign of Herod the
Great (who died nine years prior to
Quirinius’s governorship as recorded by

Josephus). For many years, skeptics

on iene ay ane ale: pointed to this discrepancy as evidence

that Luke’s gospel was written late in history by someone who was
unfamiliar with the chronology of leaders. Archaeological discoveries in the
nineteenth century have provided additional information to remedy this
apparent contradiction, however, revealing that Quirinius (or someone with
the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the
death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this

period of time,O2 and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch.22

Archaeology now corroborates the early existence of Quirinius as a

governor at the time of the census recorded by Luke.

LYSANIAS HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
Luke also described a tetrarch named

Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned

over Abilene when John the Baptist

Government

began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Josephus

Luke accurately described the also recorded the existence of a man
government that existed in first-
century Palestine under Roman rule.
His account demonstrates that he
was writing at the time and place he

claimed:

named Lysanias,24 but this man was a
king who ruled over the region from 40
to 36 BC (long before the birth of John

He correctly described two paths to the Baptist). Skeptics once again used

Roman citizenship in Acts 22:28.

He correctly described the process
by which accused criminals were
brought to trial in Acts 24:19.

He correctly described the manner
in which a man could invoke his
Roman citizenship and appeal his

this apparent discrepancy to cast doubt

on Luke’s’ account. As before,
archaeology appears to have resolved the

issue and corroborated Luke’s claim.

case to Caesar in Acts 25:6-12. ‘ oeas ;
Two inscriptions have been discovered
He correctly described the manner

in which a prisoner could be held by
a Roman soldier and the conditions
when imprisoned at one’s own
expense in Acts 28:16 and Acts
28:30-31. (Refer to Norman
Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of
Christian Apologetics.)

that mention Lysanias by name. One of
these, dated from AD 14 to 37, identifies
Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near

Damascus.22. This inscription confirms

the reasonable existence of two men
named Lysanias, one who ruled prior to the birth of Jesus and a tetrarch

who reigned in the precise period of time described by Luke.

THE POOL OF BETHESDA HAS BEEN CORROBORATED

John wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1—9) and said
that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate,
surrounded by five porticos. For many years, there was no evidence for
such a place outside of John’s gospel; skeptics again pointed to this passage
of Scripture and argued that John’s gospel was written late in history by
someone who was unfamiliar with the features of the city. In 1888,
however, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church

in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps
leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side.O2

68 Tp addition, the twentieth-century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls also
provided us with ancient confirmation of the pool’s existence. The Copper
Scroll (written between AD 25 and AD 68) described a list of locations in

Jerusalem that included a pool called “Beth Eshdathayin” located near a

porch.22 Once again, the claims of a gospel writer were corroborated by

archaeology.

THE POOL OF SILOAM HAS BEEN CORROBORATED

<@\ Other Significant
\2—* Archaeological
Corroborations

Politarchs

For many centuries, Luke was the
only ancient writer to use the word
politarch to describe “rulers of the
city.” Skeptics doubted that it was a
legitimate Greek term until nineteen
inscriptions were discovered. Five of
these were in_ reference to
Thessalonica (the very city in which
Luke was claiming to have heard the
term).

Sergius Paulus

In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius
Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos.
Skeptics doubted the existence of
this man and claimed that any
leader of this area would be a
“propraetor” rather than a proconsul.
But an inscription was discovered at
Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged
Paulus and identified him as a
proconsul.

John also wrote about the “pool of
Siloam” (John 9:1—-12) and described it
as a place of ceremonial cleansing.
Although the pool is also mentioned in
the Old Testament (in Isa. 8:6 and 22:9),
John was the only other ancient author to
describe its existence. Scholars were
unable to locate the pool with any
certainty until its discovery in the City of
David region of Jerusalem in 2004.
Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli
Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it
from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the
features of the pool and coins found in
This

corroborated the reliability of Christian

the plaster).22 discovery

Scripture and the testimony of John.

PONTIUS PILATE HAS BEEN
CORROBORATED

For many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius

Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a

very brief citation by Tacitus (described in the previous section). In 1961,

however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with

Pilate’s name.Zt The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial
capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26~—36), and it describes a building
dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar. This single discovery
corroborates what the gospel writers said about Pilate’s existence in history,

his position within the government, and his relationship to Tiberius Caesar.

THE CUSTOM OF CRUCIFIXION HAS BEEN CORROBORATED
The gospel writers weren’t the only ones who described the Roman custom

of crucifixion. Josephus, in his description of the destruction of Jerusalem,

also described the practice.22 But while thousands of condemned criminals
and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one
of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. Some skeptical
scholars speculated that this was because executed criminals of this sort
were not afforded decent burials; they were typically thrown into common
graves along with other similarly executed prisoners. The gospel writers,
however, wrote that Jesus received a proper burial. Skeptics doubted this
was possible because they lacked evidence that a victim of crucifixion had
ever been buried in this way. In 1968, however, Vassilios Tzaferis found the

first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’ galgol, buried in a

proper Jewish “kokhim-type” tomb.22 Yohanan’s remains revealed that he
had a spike driven into both feet and nails driven between the lower bones
of the arms. The discovery of Yohanan’s tomb corroborates the fact that
some criminals were, in fact, given burials similar to the one described by

the gospel writers.

Many other gospel details have been corroborated by archaeology; such
discoveries continue to validate the claims of the gospel writers from the

“outside in.” Even when the written accounts of ancient nonbiblical writers

seem to contradict the testimony of the gospel authors, archaeological
findings continue to resolve the apparent contradictions by confirming the

claims of the New Testament.

& 4 BROAD STROKES AND MINOR DETAILS

; The internal and external evidences corroborate the gospel narratives
and capture an image of Jesus’s life and ministry. The broad and general
elements of the Gospels are imaged for us by the ancient nonbiblical
authors of the first and early second centuries, and they are confirmed by
the archaeological record. This part of the picture is minimal and less
focused, but the image is clear enough to recognize. It matches (in broad
strokes) the testimony of the gospel writers found in the New Testament.
Beyond this general corroboration, however, many of the specific details of
the gospel accounts are made clear for us from the internal evidence of the
Gospels themselves. The more we identify instances of unintentional
support that occur between the gospel writers (what J. J. Blunt referred to as
“undesigned coincidences”), correct identification of proper names and
locations, and the appropriate Greek language of the region and time, the
more confidence we can have that these accounts are providing details

consistent with first-century Palestine.

tt ° " f
borated by the Fyternal Evidence 0
oie Broad Strokes Trcal Wrmesses and Archaeology

el ZOD SFA DtP ia a Ke whee :
LILO OOOO
Jb tty Gig A VLR
tif MEY, yy ETB oy
Pry ye WY ey, tit A
oth fs» bey Db bp f Veep OY PBA,
BASS, (ils > ios ie re patr oy Hf
Ap pp 1 7p me AAP ILD f Leh WISE RES ‘tN,
Wh, bop ib
Yi iy

a
NGI eps py yy
“Mb tye

OLY PLS

4 PEL HEF, £y fy Vaditht th Whe

rg p phy # Fa th) yy
4 aa raw

Yes
Wy

PLT FOOT a

The Fine Details Corroborated by the “Internal Evidence” of
Names, Locations, Language, and “Unintentional Support”

Our picture of Jesus is made clearer by the corroboration of the internal
evidence as it authenticates the external evidence and validates the claims

of the gospel writers themselves.

) SO, WHY DO SOME CONTINUE TO DENY
IT?

Some critics of the Gospels are unimpressed with the internal and external

evidences we’ve discussed so far, in spite of the fact that these evidences
are diverse and consistent with one another. Many skeptics have argued that
there are still passages within the Gospels that are yet to be understood or
supported by extrabiblical evidence. Let’s take a look at the objections of
skeptics related to these areas of internal and external evidence to see why
some (like Albert Einstein) have described the Gospels as an “expression
and product of human weaknesses.”

?=) SOME ORIGINAL WRITINGS OF ANCIENT AUTHORS ARE
4_+ MISSING

Many critics have rejected some of the external corroboration we’ve

described from ancient non-Christian authors like Thallus and Phlegon.
They’ve argued that the original texts from these two ancient historians are
unavailable to us. Instead we have been examining quotes from these
writers as they were cited by Christian authors (Sextus Julius Africanus and
Origen) who wrote much later in history. How do we know that these
ancient Christian apologists didn’t distort or misquote Thallus and Phlegon?
Skeptics argue that we cannot trust the quotes we have today because we

don’t have access to the copies of Thallus’s or Phlegon’s complete texts.

BUT ...

Both Africanus and Origen cite the work of Thallus and Phlegon from a
position of skepticism, not agreement. Africanus said that Thallus proposed
an eclipse to explain the darkness at Jesus’s crucifixion, but Africanus
clearly did not agree with this conclusion; he said that Thallus made this
claim “without reason.” In a similar way, Origen argued that Phlegon was
mistaken about many aspects of his account (“falling into confusion about
some things which refer to Peter’), even as Phlegon reluctantly admitted
that Jesus could predict the future. Neither Africanus nor Origen sterilized
the accounts they cited, removing the details that didn’t support their case.
Instead, Africanus and Origen quoted the work of Thallus and Phlegon even
though they didn’t always agree with their conclusions. The best inference
from the evidence here is that Africanus and Origen were correctly and
honestly citing their sources, especially since we have no other competing
ancient citations of Thallus and Phlegon that contradict what Africanus and

Origen reported.

>) SOME GOSPEL TERMS ARE STILL “TROUBLESOME”

A Some critics have cited a number of terms that appear to be used

incorrectly by the gospel writers. They argue that these mistaken references
either expose that the gospel writers were unfamiliar with the time and
region they were describing, or that the Gospels were written much later
than some would claim. As an example, skeptics have pointed to the
Sermon on the Mount and argued that Jesus’s remarks about praying in
public, as the hypocrites did in the synagogues (Matt. 6:5), are out of place.
Some Jewish scholars have contended that ancient Jews of Jesus’s day did

not pray in the synagogues and that this practice began only after the temple

was destroyed in AD 70.4 If this were the case, the gospel of Matthew
contains a claim that is curiously out of sequence. There are a handful of
other similar examples offered by critics who claim there are terms that are
either suspiciously unique to the gospel writers or appear to be used in a

way unparalleled in other ancient writings of the time.

BUT ...

Objections like these presume that we have perfect knowledge of the first-
century environment in Palestine. In this specific objection, for example,
there is no archaeological or ancient-document evidence that contradicts the
claims of the gospel writers. Instead, critics have argued against the Gospels
because they have not yet found external support for the biblical claims. But
we’ve already seen a number of examples of other gospel claims that were
once uncorroborated (the pool of Bethesda, for example) or appeared to be
contradictory (the identities of Quirinius or Lysanias, for example) but were
ultimately corroborated by archaeology. Much of the skepticism leveled at
the biblical historical account is based on the presumption, even without

evidential support, that the account is false unless corroborated. In essence,

the gospel writers are guilty until proved innocent. There is no presumption
of innocence for the authors of the New Testament. Unlike other ancient
historical witnesses, the writers of the Gospels are not afforded the luxury
of presumed credibility when there is silence on a particular claim from
other ancient sources.

Much of this skepticism is due to the presupposition of philosophical
naturalism that we talked about in chapter 1. The Gospels contain
descriptions of the supernatural: healings, prophetic utterances, and
miracles. Because critics deny the possibility of such things, they reject the
biblical accounts and look for ways to describe them as fallacious. It is this
presupposition that drives many skeptics to claim that the Gospels were
written late in history, far from the region where the miraculous events
reportedly occurred. How else could the gospel writers have fooled so many
people with these stories about the supernatural? Certainly they couldn’t
have written these accounts at a time or place in which the true
eyewitnesses could expose their fabrications, could they? The evidence we
have from archaeology and ancient sources does not support the claim for
late or distant authorship, however, and Paul argued that there were many
eyewitnesses still available to corroborate the miracles of Jesus (particularly
His resurrection) at the time of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in AD 53-57
(1 Cor. 15:6). If we can overcome our bias against descriptions of the
Supernatural, the claims of the gospel accounts are convincingly

corroborated.

wD ARCHAEOLOGY CANNOT CONFIRM EVERY GOSPEL
@_ DETAIL

Some skeptics have argued that archaeology simply cannot satisfactorily

corroborate the claims of any historical author or ancient eyewitness. There

are many portions of the gospel accounts that are not supported by the
current finds of archaeology, and (as we’ve demonstrated) there have been a
number of biblical claims that seemed to contradict other ancient accounts
and were unanswered by archaeology for many centuries. If archaeology is
as limited as it appears to be, how can we trust it to completely corroborate
the claims of the gospel writers? In addition, what kind of archaeological
evidence could ever corroborate the miracles described in the Bible? Even
if we believed that miracles were reasonable, what kind of archaeological
evidence could, for example, corroborate Jesus’s healing of the blind man?
For these skeptics, archaeology, while interesting, seems too limited to be

of much assistance.

BUT...

The archaeological evidences we’ve discussed in this chapter are only one
category of evidence in the cumulative circumstantial case we are
presenting for the corroboration of the Gospels. Like all circumstantial
cases, each piece of evidence is incapable of proving the case entirely on its
own. Circumstantial cases are built on the strength of multiple lines of
evidence and the fact that all the individual pieces point to the same
conclusion. The archaeological support we have for the gospel accounts
(like the archaeological support for any ancient event) is limited and
incomplete. That shouldn’t surprise us. Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, historian and
professor emeritus at Miami University, has rightly noted that
archaeological evidence is a matter of “fractions.” Only a fraction of the
world’s archaeological evidence still survives in the ground. In addition,
only a fraction of the possible archaeological sites have been discovered. Of
these only a fraction have been excavated, and those only partially. To make

matters more difficult, only a fraction of those partial excavations have been

thoroughly examined and published. Finally, only a fraction of what has

been examined and published has anything to do with the claims of the

Bible!Z2 In spite of these limits, we shouldn’t hesitate to use what we do
know archaeologically in combination with other lines of evidence.
Archaeology may not be able to tell us everything, but it can help us fill in
the circumstantial case as we corroborate the gospel record.

It’s also important to remember that many of the objections leveled by
skeptics trade on the assumption that the Gospels are written late, well after
the lives of anyone who could testify to what really happened. The evidence
from chapter 11, however, leaves little doubt that the Gospels emerged
within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. If Luke’s gospel was written as early as
the evidence suggests, any claim that Luke errantly cited a particular
governorship or errantly described a sequence of leaders is unreasonable. If
this were the case, the early readers of Luke’s gospel, reading it in the first
century with a memory of what truly happened, would have caught Luke’s
error from the very beginning. If nothing else, we would expect to see some
early scribe try to alter the narrative to correct the mistaken history. No
alteration of this sort ever took place, and the early readers of Luke’s gospel
did not challenge Luke’s account. The gospel was delivered to them early,
while they still knew the correct order of governors and kings. Thousands
of years later, we may initially doubt Luke and then be surprised that
archaeology eventually corroborates his account. If the evidence supporting
the early dating of Luke’s gospel is correct, however, we really shouldn’t be

surprised that Luke will ultimately be vindicated.

THE CASE FOR CORROBORATION

This circumstantial case can be examined with some abductive reasoning as

we try to determine if the Gospels have been reasonably corroborated. Let’s

once again list all the evidence we’ve examined so far, including the claims
of skeptics. Is it reasonable to infer that the Gospels are sufficiently
corroborated?

Even when considering the limits of archaeology and the limits of
internal literary analysis, the most reasonable inference from the evidence
is that the Gospels are incredibly reliable, especially considering the nature
of such accounts. Few ancient records have been as critically examined as
the New Testament Gospels. Few other documents from antiquity have
been as heavily challenged and scrutinized. This prolonged scrutiny has
given us a robust and detailed set of evidences that we can examine with
abductive reasoning.

If we accept the first explanation (that the Gospels are reliable and
trustworthy), we can integrate and embrace all the evidence without any
contradiction or friction between pieces. The second explanation may
exploit the last three claims but cannot account for the first seven truths.
The inference that the Gospels are reliable and consistent with other
contemporary evidences is the best explanation. The explanation is feasible,
straightforward, and logical. It is superior to the alternative explanation.
Once again, it meets the criteria we established for abductive reasoning; we

can have confidence that we’ve arrived at the most reasonable explanation.

The~Gospel-Writers Provided Unintentional
i Eyewitness Support Kc st
The Gospel Writers Referenced Names Correctl cote] he
*The Gospel Writers Used Appropriate Language ~:'<'}]"acco
The Gospel Writers Identified the Correct Locations 7/==, :—
Nonbiblical Eyewitnesses Corroborated- 4 ericiece of |=
the Gospels aap pie ff top
Ancient Jewish Writers Corroborated the a.
3 Archaeology Corroborates the Gospels cutpee==
Me Some Original Writings of Ancient Authors 2.5257
pyr, Are Missing rr ners owe
Some Gospel Terms Are Still iioullccome aie
ge re Cannot t corte Evey a Detail - ase ee

0g

THE GOSPELS PASS THE SECOND TEST

So far we’ve examined two areas that juries consider when evaluating
eyewitnesses. The evidence supports the fact that the gospel writers were
present in the first century, and their claims are consistent with many pieces
of corroborative evidence. Does this mean that they are reliable? Not yet,
but we are halfway there. The Gospels have passed the first two tests; their
testimony appears early enough in history, and their claims can be
corroborated. Now we have to make sure they haven’t been corrupted over
time. We’ve got to make sure that the accounts we have today are an

accurate reflection of what was originally recorded by the eyewitnesses.

CASE NOTES

48. Albert Einstein, as quoted from his Gutkind Letter (January 3, 1954) in James Randerson,
“Childish superstition: Einstein’s letter makes view of religion relatively clear,” Guardian, May 12,
2008, accessed April 25, 2012, www. guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion.

49. Robert Green Ingersoll, Lectures of Col. R. G. Ingersoll, Latest (Valde Books, 2009), Kindle

edition, Kindle location 1319.
50. For more information, refer to Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel: The Evidence from

Archaeology and the Bible (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, May 1987), 7.

51, For more information about the locations where the Gospels were written, refer to Eusebius, The
History of the Church (Neeland Media LLC, 2009), chap. VIII.

52. For more information, refer to Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Kindle location 1113.

53. For more information, refer to Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Palestine 330
BCE-200 CE (Philadelphia: Coronet Books, 2002).

54, Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Kindle location 1189.

55. Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Jerusalem, 1971), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 9-10, 16.
56. Quoted in Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to
A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 9, Irenaeus, Vol. II—Hippolytus, Vol. IT
—Fragments of Third Century (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1870), 188.

57, Comelius Tacitus, Works of Cornelius Tacitus. Includes Agricola, The Annals, A Dialogue
concerning Oratory, Germania and The Histories (Boston: MobileReference, 2009), Kindle edition,
Kindle locations 6393-6397.

58. “Letter from Mara Bar-Serapion to His Son,” quoted in Bruce, New Testament Documents,
Kindle locations 1684-1688.

59, Quoted in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, eds. Roberts and Donaldson, vol. 9, 188.

60. Origen, “Origen Against Celsus,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson, vol. 4, Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and
Second (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885), 437, 445, 455. For more information related to Origen’s
quotations of Phlegon, refer to www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm or William Hansen, Phlegon
of Tralles’ Book of Marvels, University of Exeter Press: Exeter Studies in History (Exeter, UK:
University of Exeter Press, 1997).

61. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews (Unabridged Books, 2011), bk. 17, chap. 18, sec. 2, v. 1.

62. Jerry Vardaman, from an unpublished manuscript (The Year of the Nativity: Was Jesus Born in 12
B.C.? A New Examination of Quirinius [Luke 2:2] and Related Problems of New Testament
Chronology) as cited in John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 6332-6334.

63. Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New
Testament (Primedia eLaunch, 2011), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 3446-3448.

64, Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, Kindle edition, Kindle locations 1292-1295.

65. John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009),
Kindle edition, Kindle locations 2091—2095.

66. Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New
Testament (Primedia eLaunch, 2011), Kindle edition, Kindle locations 3630-3658.

67. Bruce, New Testament Documents, Kindle locations 1393-1400.

68. Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York:
HarperCollins e-books, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle location 73.

69. John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009),
Kindle edition, Kindle locations 2537-2543.

70. Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus, Kindle location 71.

71. McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, Kindle location 1922.

72. Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, Kindle edition, Kindle locations 31292-31294.

N

. McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, Kindle location 2820.

NI

74, Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount, Elibron Classics (Whitefish,
MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2011), 266.
75. For more information related to the “fraction” limitations of biblical archaeology, refer to Edwin

Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), 146-62.

F
Ak?
Va

4

Chapter 13.
WERE THEY ACCURATE?

Ned

The characters and events depicted in the ... bible are fictitious.

Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely

coincidental.Z2

—Comedians and magicians “Penn and Teller”

How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because

the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this

sort are fast draining the light from our world.ZZ
—Sam Harris, neuroscientist, speaker, and author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror,

and the Future of Reason

TIME, DOCUMENTATION, AND LIES

People who claim that the biblical narratives are mere fiction and filled with
error presume that the authors of the Bible wrote the Gospels long after the
reported events allegedly occurred and far from the locations they
described. False, fictional elements can be inserted into an account if they
are inserted well after any living eyewitnesses are alive to identify them as
lies. In addition, if the true historical record has not been preserved well or
guarded to prevent corruption, errors can slip in without much notice. If this
occurred with the Gospels, they are untrustworthy. Even if they are
corroborated at several points by archaeology or internal evidences, they

may still be inaccurate about any number of episodes they describe.

Cold-case investigators understand the relationship between time and
reliability. We have to evaluate the prior statements of witnesses and
suspects and do our best to figure out if these statements are true or
fictional. Sometimes the passage of time provides an advantage to cold-case
investigators that was not available to the detectives who originally worked
the case. Time often exposes the inaccuracy of eyewitnesses and the lies of
suspects. I’ve taken advantage of this over the years.

I once had a case where the suspect (Jassen) provided an alibi at the time
he was originally investigated in 1988. Jassen said that he was driving to a
friend’s house at the time of the murder, although he never made it there
because he had a flat tire. When he said this to the original detectives, they
wrote it in their notes. They failed, however, to document Jassen’s
statement in their final report. They never found enough evidence to arrest
Jassen, and as a result, they didn’t write an arrest report; their closing
reports were far less complete than they would have been if anyone had
actually been arrested for this crime.

Years later, I reopened the case and examined the original reports and
notes of the first detectives. They had been carefully preserved in our
department’s records division, where they were originally copied and stored
on microfiche. I saw Jassen’s original statement in the first detective’s notes
and asked this investigator to meet with me. He told me about his interview
with Jassen, and without prompting from his notes, he recalled the details of
what Jassen said with great accuracy. When I showed him the copy of his
notes, he recognized them without hesitation.

I next arranged an impromptu interview with Jassen. While the original
detective was careful to take notes about the interview he conducted in

1988, Jassen made no such record. With the passage of time, Jassen forgot

what he first told the detective. The story he now gave to me was
completely different from the story he first gave to detectives. Gone was his
claim that he was driving to a friend’s house. Gone was his claim that he
suffered a flat tire. Jassen now said that he was changing the oil in his
garage at the time of the murder. When I presented him with the original
story, he not only failed to recognize it as his own, but also adamantly
denied ever making such a statement. Jassen couldn’t remember (or repeat)
his original lie. The more I talked to him, the more he exposed the fact that
the original story was a piece of fiction. Once he knew he had been caught
in a lie, his alibi and confidence began to crumble.

Jassen was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder. The jury was
convinced that the original notes from the detective were authentic and well
preserved. They were convinced that the notes contained an accurate
description of Jassen’s first statement. They were also convinced that

Jassen’s latest statement was untrue.

WHAT DID THEY SAY, AND HOW WELL WAS
IT PRESERVED?

How do we know that the biblical documents we have today are accurate
and reliable? How do we know that they haven’t been corrupted over time
and contain little more than fiction? Like our cold-case investigations, we
need certainty in two important areas of investigation. First, we need to
make sure we know what the Gospels said in the first place. Second, we
need to know if there is good reason to believe that these documents were
preserved well over time. Jassen’s statement in 1988 was well documented
and preserved. We were later able to make a case for the accuracy of his
statement in front of the jury. Can a case be made for the accuracy of the

Gospels? In order to find out if this is possible, we’re going to investigate

what the gospel writers first said and then study the way these statements
were preserved over time.

One way to be certain about the content and nature of the early
eyewitness statements is to examine the evidence related to the
transmission of the New Testament. In chapter 8 we talked about the
importance of identifying the original eyewitnesses and their immediate
disciples in order to establish a New Testament chain of custody. If we can
examine what these first eyewitnesses said to their students, we can
reasonably trace the content of the Gospels from their alleged date of
creation to the earliest existing copies. The oldest complete, surviving copy
of the New Testament we have (Codex Sinaiticus) was discovered in the
Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Constantine Tischendorf

observed it and published the discovery in the nineteenth century; scholars

believe that it was produced sometime close to AD 350.28 The text of
Codex Sinaiticus provides us with a picture of what the New Testament said
in the fourth century, and scholars have used it to inform and confirm the
content of Bible translations for many years now. Our examination of the
New Testament chain of custody will attempt to link the claims of the
original authors to this fourth-century picture of Jesus’s life and ministry.
When I first began to examine the “chain,” I searched the historical
record to identify the first students of the apostles. After all, the apostles
claimed to have seen Jesus and experienced life with Him; I wanted to
know what, exactly, they said to their students. While the apostles had a
number of pupils, not every one of these second-generation Christians
became a leader in his own right or was identified by history. Not every
apostolic student had occasion to lead a group or author a letter revealing

what the original disciples taught him. While many of the apostles’ students

may have written about the content of their teachers’ testimony, only a few
of these documents have survived. That shouldn’t surprise us given the
antiquity of the events we are examining. In spite of all this, I was able to
identify several chains of custody that give us an idea of what the apostles
observed and taught. In fact, I bet we could comfortably reconstruct an
accurate image of Jesus from just the letters of the students of the apostles,

even if all of Scripture was lost to us. Let’s take a look at the evidence from

the New Testament “chains of custody”:

The apostle John (ca. AD 6-100) was the youngest of Jesus’s disciples. He
was the son of Zebedee and Salome and the brother of James. Unlike all the
other apostles (who died as martyrs), it appears that John lived to
approximately ninety-four years of age and died a natural death. John

taught two important students and passed his gospel into their trusted hands.

JOHN TAUGHT IGNATIUS

Ignatius (ca. AD 35-117) also called himself “Theophorus” (which means
“God Bearer”). Not much is known about his early life, although early
church records describe Ignatius as one of the children Jesus blessed in the
gospel accounts. We do know, however, that Ignatius was a student of John
and eventually became bishop at Antioch (Turkey), following the apostle
Peter. He wrote several important letters to the early church, and seven

authentic letters from Ignatius survive to this day (six to local church

groups and one to Polycarp).22 Some of these letters were corrupted in later
centuries and amended with additional passages. We do, however, possess

copies of the shorter, genuine versions of each epistle, and these brief

writings reveal the influence of John (and other apostles) on Ignatius. It’s
important to remember that it was not Ignatius’s desire to retell the gospel
narratives; his writings presume that these Gospels were already available
to his readers. It was Ignatius’s goal to encourage and admonish local
church groups. Along the way, he did, however, refer to the New Testament
documents and the nature of Jesus, even though this was not his primary
goal. It’s clear from Ignatius’s letters that he knew many of the apostles, as
he mentioned them frequently and spoke of them as though many of his
older readers also knew them. Scholars have pored over the letters (written
in AD 105-115) and have observed that Ignatius quoted (or alluded to)
seven to sixteen New Testament books (including the gospels of Matthew,
John, and Luke, and several, if not all, of Paul’s letters). While this
establishes the fact that the New Testament concepts and documents existed
very early in history, Ignatius’s letters also provide us with a picture of
Jesus and a glimpse of how the apostle John (as an eyewitness) described
Him. As I read through Ignatius’s letters, I found the following portrayal of

Jesus:

The prophets predicted and waited for J esus 20

Jesus was in the line of King David.81

He was (and is) the “Son of God.82

He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.83

A star announced His birth.84

He came forth from God the Father.82
86

He was born of the virgin Mary.—=

He was baptized by John the Baptist.2Z

He was the “perfect” man.88

He manifested the will and knowledge of God the Father.82

He taught and had a “ministry” on earth.20

He was the source of wisdom and taught many commandments.24
He spoke the words of God.22
Ointment was poured on Jesus’s head.23
He was unjustly treated and condemned by men.24
He suffered and was crucified.22
He died on the cross.2°
Jesus sacrificed Himself for us as an offering to God the Father. 22
This all took place under the government of Pontius Pilate. 28
Herod the Tetrarch was king.22
Jesus was resurrected,L00
He had a physical resurrection body.104
He appeared to Peter and the others after the resurrection.202
He encouraged the disciples to touch Him after the
resurrection.203
He ate with the disciples after the resurrection.204
105

The disciples were convinced by the resurrection appearances.—=

The disciples were fearless after seeing the risen Christ £28

Jesus returned to God the Father 122

Jesus now lives in us. 198

We live forever as a result of our faith in Christ.222

He has the power to transform us 410

Jesus is the manifestation of God the Father. ttt

He is united to God the Father. 412

He is our only Master£!3 and the Son of God.214

He is the “Door,” L12 the “Bread of Life,”L16 and the “Eternal
Word,” £12

He is our High Priest 118

Jesus is “Lord.” L12

Jesus is “God.7220

He is “our Savior and the way to “true life.

His sacrifice glorifies us.423

Faith in Christ’s work on the cross saves us.124

This salvation and forgiveness are gifts of grace from God.122

Jesus loves the church.228

We (as the church) celebrate the Lord’s Supper in Jesus’s honor.22Z

The letters of Ignatius demonstrate that the New Testament’s claims and
writings existed early in history; Ignatius appears to be very familiar with
many passages from the Gospels and the letters of Paul. In addition,

Ignatius echoed John’s description of Jesus.

JOHN TAUGHT POLYCARP
Polycarp (AD 69-155) was a friend of Ignatius and a fellow student of

John. Irenaeus (we’ll talk about him more in a moment) later testified that

he once heard Polycarp talk about his conversations with John, and
Polycarp was known to have been converted to Christianity by the

eyewitness apostles themselves. Polycarp eventually became the bishop of

Smyrnal28 (now Izmir in Turkey) and wrote a letter to the church in
Philippi, in response to its letter to him. The content of Polycarp’s letter (an
ancient document written from AD 100 to 150 and well attested in history)
refers to Ignatius personally and is completely consistent with the content of
Ignatius’s letters. Polycarp also appears to be familiar with the other living
apostles and eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. He wrote about Paul,
recognizing Paul’s relationship with the church at Philippi and confirming
the nature of Paul’s life as an apostle. Polycarp’s letter is focused on
encouraging the Philippians and reminding them of their duty to live in
response to the New Testament teaching with which they were clearly
familiar. In fact, Polycarp mentioned that the Philippians were well trained
by the “sacred Scriptures” and quoted Paul’s letter to the Ephesians as an
example of these Scriptures. Polycarp quoted or referenced fourteen to
sixteen New Testament books (including Matthew, Luke, John, Acts,
Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians,
2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, and 1 John, with some scholars
observing additional references to 2 Timothy and 2 Corinthians). Along the
way, Polycarp also presented the image of Jesus he gleaned from his

teacher, the apostle John, describing Jesus in the following ways:

Jesus was sinless.£22

He taught commandments.432

He taught the Sermon on the Mount.431

He suffered and died on a cross.232

He died for our sins.223

His death on the cross saves us.134

Our faith in Jesus’s work on the cross saves us.432

We are saved by grace, 436

Jesus was raised from the dead.422

His resurrection ensures that we will also be raised. 238

Jesus ascended to heaven and is seated at God’s right hand.232

All things are subject to Jesus.440

He will judge the living and the dead 441

Jesus is our “Savior. 242

Jesus is “Tord.243

Like that of Ignatius, Polycarp’s writing affirms the early appearance of
the New Testament canon and echoes the teachings of John related to the
nature and ministry of Jesus. Ignatius and Polycarp are an important link in
the New Testament chain of custody, connecting John’s eyewitness
testimony to the next generation of Christian “evidence custodians.” We
have a picture from the “crime scene” taken by the apostle John (recorded
in his own gospel); this image was carefully handed to Ignatius and
Polycarp, who, in turn, treasured it as sacred evidence and transferred it

carefully to those who followed them.

IGNATIUS AND POLYCARP TAUGHT IRENAEUS
Irenaeus (AD 120-202) was bom in Smyrna, the city where Polycarp
served as bishop. He was raised in a Christian family and was a “hearer”

(someone who listened to the teaching) of Polycarp; he later recalled that

Polycarp talked about his conversations with the apostle John. He

eventually became the bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now Lyons,

France).444 Irenaeus matured into a theologian and guardian of Christianity
and wrote an important work called Against Heresies. This refined defense
of Christianity provided Irenaeus with the opportunity to address the issue
of scriptural authority, and he specifically identified as many as twenty-four
New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2
Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation). Irenaeus provided
us with another link in the chain of custody, affirming the established
eyewitness accounts and faithfully preserving them for the next generation
as he connected the students of the apostles to the generations that followed

him.

IRENAEUS TAUGHT HIPPOLYTUS
One of these “next-generation” Christians was a courageous man named

Hippolytus (AD 170-236). Hippolytus was born in Rome and was a student

and disciple of Irenaeus.242 As he grew into a position of leadership, he
opposed Roman bishops who modified their beliefs to accommodate the
large number of “pagans” who were coming to faith in the city. In taking a
stand for orthodoxy, Hippolytus became known as the first “antipope” or
“rival pope” in Christian history. He was an accomplished speaker of great
learning, influencing a number of important Christian leaders such as
Origen of Alexandria. Hippolytus wrote a huge ten-volume treatise called
Refutation of All Heresies. In this expansive work, Hippolytus identified as

many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2
Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2
John, and Revelation). Unfortunately, Hippolytus was persecuted under
Emperor Maximus Thrax and exiled to Sardinia, where he most likely died
in the mines. The writings of Hippolytus (like the writings of Irenaeus
before him) confirm that the New Testament accounts were already well
established in the earliest years of the Christian movement.

As a result of Hippolytus’s exile and martyrdom, this particular chain of
custody ends without a clear next link, although it is certain that Hippolytus
had many important students who preserved the Scripture with the same
passion he had as a student of Irenaeus. While Origen of Alexandria may
have considered himself to be a disciple of Hippolytus, we have no concrete
evidence that this was the case. To be safe, we simply have to acknowledge
that history has not yet revealed the certain identity of Hippolytus’s
students. One thing we know for sure: the truth about the life and ministry
of Jesus (and the canon of Scripture) was established in the first century.
The eyewitness account of John (along with the other New Testament

documents) was recorded and handed down to his disciples.

(44-16 Books) (24 Books)
Apostle John Polycarp Hippolytus

maheeGny (os

Ge a

‘
N
N

Ji
J
()
{s

i f |
. <

: “+ Ignatius
Life of Seas (I-16 Bocks) &
(AD 1-33)

Cvdex ra A
Council of Laodicea
(AD 350-363)

(24 Books)”

John’s students recorded this teaching and identified the sources for later

generations. Long before the Codex Sinaiticus was first penned or the

Council of Laodicea formalized the canon, the New ‘Testament was

established as a reliable eyewitness account.

}3) PA UL’S STUDENTS CONFIRMED THE ACCURACY OF THE
4_* GOSPELS
The apostle Paul (ca. AD 5—67) wrote the largest portion of the New
Testament and was closely associated with several key apostles, historians,
and eyewitnesses who helped to document and guard the Scripture we have
today. Paul’s friend Luke, for example, was a meticulous historian with
access to the eyewitnesses and a personal involvement in the history of the
New Testament church. As described in chapter 11, Paul quoted Luke’s
version of the gospel in 1 Timothy 5:17—18 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
Those who knew Paul were probably familiar with the writings of Luke.
Paul had several key students and disciples who protected and transmitted
his writings (along with the emerging writings of other eyewitnesses,
including Luke) to the next generation of Christian leaders. Paul’s chain of
custody is much harder to trace than that of John, but we can follow Paul’s
influence through the early leadership in Rome to places as far away as

Syria.

PAUL TAUGHT LINUS AND CLEMENT OF ROME

Paul spent his last years in Rome under house arrest, awaiting trial. During
this time he had free access to other believers and taught many men who
would eventually lead the church. We know two of these men specifically.
Irenaeus described a man named Linus as one of Paul’s coworkers (Paul
identifies a coworker named Linus specifically in 2 Timothy 4:21 along

with Eubulus, Pudens, and Claudia). History tells us that Linus was born in

Tuscany to Herculanus and Claudia, and became the pope of Rome
following the deaths of Peter and Paul.
History is unclear on the precise order of popes in these first years, and

some early records indicate that Clement of Rome may have preceded

Linus.£48 Clement was also a coworker of Paul (mentioned specifically in

Philippians 4:3), and he became an important assistant to Paul and Peter in

the first years in Rome.242 In fact, Peter appears to have elevated both
Linus and Clement to positions of leadership so that he could focus on
prayer and preaching. Clement wrote several letters, and one of these letters
(The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians) survives as the earliest
Christian document outside the New Testament. Clement’s letter (written in
AD 80-140) was written to encourage the Corinthian church and call it to
holy living. Clement referenced a number of examples from the Old
Testament and also referred to the life and teaching of Jesus as it was passed
on to him from Paul and Peter. In fact, Clement talked about the chain of
custody that existed from the apostolic eyewitnesses to his own second-
generation readers. Clement told the Corinthian believers that “the Apostles
for our sakes received the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ

was sent from God. Christ then is from God, and the Apostles from Christ.

Both therefore came in due order from the will of God.”148 Clement
understood the “appointed order” of the eyewitness “chain of custody.”
When examining the letter carefully, scholars have observed that Clement
quoted or alluded to seven New Testament books (Mark, Matthew or John,
Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians) as he penned his work.
Clement also described the person and work of Jesus, echoing the

description of Jesus that was first communicated by the eyewitnesses.

Clement’s description of Jesus was very similar to the description offered

by Ignatius and Polycarp:

The prophets predicted the life and ministry of J esus,249

Jesus provided His disciples with important instruction 122

He taught principles as described by Mark and Luke.J2L

He was humble and unassuming.122

He was whipped.123

He suffered and died for our salvation.£24

He died as a payment for our sin,d22

He was resurrected from the dead,22

He is alive and reigning with God.422

His resurrection makes our resurrection certain. 128

We are saved by the “grace” of Godl22 through faith in Jesus 462

He is “Lord”! and the Son of God.t92

He possesses eternal glory and majesty 03

All creation belongs to Him.184

He is our “refuge” 102 and our “High Priest.” 188

He is our “defender” and “helper.” 82

The church belongs to Him.268
While it is clear that Clement presumed his readers already understood

the truth about Jesus from the Gospels he quoted, Clement still referenced

many attributes of Jesus that were consistent with the picture painted by

Peter, Paul, and the gospel writers. Clement certainly wrote much more than
this single letter and may have affirmed an even larger number of texts. His
surviving letter to the Corinthians provides us with another link in the chain
of custody, acknowledging the delivery of the eyewitness accounts from the

original eyewitnesses to the next generation of believers.

CLEMENT PASSED THE TRUTH FROM EVARISTUS TO PIUS

Linus and Clement of Rome established the lineage of bishops who

followed Paul (and Peter) at Rome.202 They taught, discussed, and passed
the eyewitness Scripture along to their successors, from Evaristus (AD ?—
109) to Alexander I (AD ?-115) to Sixtus I (AD ?—125) to Telesphorus (AD
2-136) to Hyginus (AD ?-140), to Pius I (AD 90-154). The writings of
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement demonstrate that the second generation of
Christian leaders already considered the writings of the eyewitnesses to be
precious Scripture. It’s reasonable to conclude that the papal leaders who
followed Clement were raised to appreciate and honor the primacy of the
eyewitness accounts as well; they understood the importance of guarding

these accounts for future generations.

PIUS | AND JUSTIN MARTYR GUARDED THE ACCOUNTS

In the early years of the Christian church, the city of Rome was filled with
people who either came to faith there (under the preaching of the apostles or
their disciples) or traveled there after coming to faith somewhere else in the
Roman Empire. One such person, Justin of Caesarea (AD 103-165),
became an important philosopher and contributor to the history of

Christianity. Justin Martyr, as he came to be known, was one of the earliest

Christian apologists.L20 He was born in Flavia Neapolis (now Nablus,

Palestine) to Greek parents. He was raised as a pagan and called himself a

Samaritan, but he studied philosophy and eventually converted to
Christianity. He taught Christian doctrine in Rome when Pius I was leading
the Christian community. He wrote several voluminous and important
works, including the First Apology, Second Apology, and the Dialogue with
Trypho. In these early Christian texts, Justin Martyr quoted or alluded to
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation. While we don’t have surviving
writings from some of the earliest bishops and popes of Rome (including
Pius I), Justin Martyr provided us with a contemporary glimpse of how

these men viewed the eyewitness accounts and guarded them for the future.

JUSTIN TAUGHT TATIAN

Not everyone who played a role in the scriptural chain of custody had
orthodox beliefs. Many recognized (and wrote about) the eyewitness
accounts, while misinterpreting them for themselves and their followers.

Tatian the Assyrian (AD 120-180) was one such example.LZ4

Tatian was born (and probably died) in Assyria. He came to Rome,
however, for some period of time and studied the Old Testament. He met
and became a student of Justin Martyr and converted to Christianity. He
studied in Rome with Justin for many years and eventually opened a
Christian school there. Over time, he developed a strict form of Christianity
that forbade marriage and the eating of meat. When Justin died, Tatian was
driven from the church in Rome. He traveled to Syria and eventually wrote
his most famous contribution, the Diatessaron, a biblical paraphrase, or
harmony, which recognized the existence of the four eyewitness accounts of
the Gospels, even as it sought to combine them into one document. The
earliest church records in Syria (traced back to Tatian) identified an early
canon that included the Diatessaron, the letters of Paul, and the book of

Acts. Tatian’s work, combined with this ancient canonical list,

acknowledges the early formation of the canon in the chain of custody from

Paul to the late second century.

‘ = Paul Eumiisius Sixtus Hyginus Justin ar \

eae ; (EX 5 Books) |
Or, Cent an ||
* Cleaeat

Cae
10 a Vp oo iy
te — , ii fs i me weal ; han ay
ite of Jesus Alexander in 4 s* at odex inai icus
(AD 1-33) cf Boks) Telesphorus Win’ Comme of Lasdices

(20 Books) (AD 350-363)

History does not provide us with precise information about the next link
in this particular chain of custody. In any case, this custodial sequence from
Paul acknowledges that the eyewitness accounts existed, were treated as
sacred Scripture from a very early time, and were handed down with care
from one generation to another. All of this happened many years before any
council determined what would officially become the New Testament

record.

: 3) PETER’S STUDENTS CONFIRMED THE ACCURACY OF
A> THE GOSPELS
The apostle Peter (ca. 1 BC-AD 67) was perhaps the oldest of Jesus’s

disciples. He was also known as Simon Cephas (from the Aramaic version
of his name). He was the son of Jonah (John) and was raised in Bethsaida
(in Galilee). He was a fisherman (along with his brother Andrew) when he
first met Jesus and quickly became a disciple. His story is well known,
replete with human failures and triumphs. After the ascension, Peter
established the church in Antioch and served there as its bishop for seven
years. He eventually traveled to Rome and became bishop there as well. In
chapter 5 we discussed the evidence that supports the claim that Mark

authored Peter’s eyewitness account in the gospel of Mark. This gospel

(like the gospel of John) is a critical piece of evidence from the “crime
scene,” and Peter carefully handed it (along with other eyewitness texts that

were emerging in the first century) to his own students and disciples:

PETER COMMUNICATED THROUGH MARK

John Mark was the cousin of Barnabas, and his childhood home was well
known to Peter (Acts 12:12—14). Mark became so close to Peter that the
apostle described him as “my son” (1 Pet. 5:13). Peter preserved his
eyewitness testimony through his primary disciple and student, who then
passed it on to the next generation in what we now recognize as the “gospel
of Mark.”

MARK TAUGHT ANIANUS, AVILIUS, KEDRON, PRIMUS, AND
JUSTUS

Mark established the church in Alexandria and immediately started
preaching and baptizing new believers. History records the fact that he had

at least five disciples, and these men eventually became church leaders in

North Africa +22 Mark discipled and taught Anianus (AD ?-82), Avilius
(AD ? -95), Kedron (AD ? —106), Primus (ca. AD 40-118), and Justus (AD
2-135), passing on his gospel along with the other early New Testament
accounts from apostolic eyewitnesses. These five men eventually became
bishops of Alexandria (one after the other) following Mark’s death. They
faithfully preserved the eyewitness accounts and passed them on, one

generation to another.

JUSTUS PASSED THE TRUTH TO PANTAENUS
While Mark was still alive, he appointed his disciple Justus as the director
of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. This important school became an

esteemed place of learning where the eyewitness accounts and Scriptures

were collected and guarded. A key figure in the early development of this
school was an ex-Stoic philosopher who converted to Christianity. His

name was Pantaenus.£/2 He became an important teacher and missionary,

traveling east of Alexandria (perhaps as far as India) and reporting that
believers were already established in the East and were using the gospel of
Matthew written in Hebrew letters. In any event, Pantaenus provided
another important link in the chain of custody because the writing of one of
his students survives to this day, chronicling and identifying the books of

the New Testament that were already considered sacred.

PANTAENUS TAUGHT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

Titus Flavius Clemens (ca. AD 150-215) was also known as Clement of

Alexandria.2/4 He was a student of Pantaenus and eventually became the
leader of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Clement was very familiar
with the pagan literature of his time and wrote extensively. Three important
volumes (the Protrepticus, the Paedagogus, and the Stromata) address
Christian morality and conduct. Most importantly, Clement discussed the
existing Scripture of the time (as it was handed down to him by Pantaenus)
and quoted or alluded to all the New Testament books except for Philemon,
James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. Clement appears to have received and
accepted the same New Testament documents that were known to his

predecessors in the “chain of custody.”

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA TAUGHT ORIGEN
Origen (ca. AD 185-254) carefully preserved and identified those ancient
eyewitness accounts used by the Christian church around the

Mediterranean. He was an Egyptian who came to faith and eventually

taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria + He wrote prolifically

and penned commentaries for nearly every book of the Bible. Along the
way, he quoted all of the New Testament books. He did express hesitation
about James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John, but included them in his list of
reliable orthodox eyewitness documents. Origen played a pivotal role
because he had a number of students who became important links in the

New Testament chain of custody.

PAMPHILUS OF CAESAREA ADOPTED ORIGEN’S WORK
In his later life, Origen fled Alexandria (under the persecution of an
archbishop who expelled Origen because he had not been ordained with

proper permission) and settled in Caesarea Maritima. Pamphilus£Z® also

settled in Caesarea Maritima after a long stay in Alexandria, where he
became devoted to the works of Origen and even wrote a five-volume
treatise called Apology for Origen. Pamphilus guarded and defended the
work of Origen, and he also accepted the eyewitness accounts of Scripture
as authoritative, expressing his confidence in these documents to his own

pupils.

PAMPHILUS OF CAESAREA TAUGHT EUSEBIUS
One of Pamphilus’s students was Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. AD 263-339), a
man who later became an important church historian, church father, and

devoted student who documented Pamphilus’s career in a three-volume

work called Vita.t/Z Eusebius was a prolific writer, and much of his work
survives to this day, including his Church History. A close survey of
Eusebius’s work reveals that he recognized and identified twenty-six New
Testament books as Scripture. He strongly affirmed Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,

Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2

Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation, and less-strongly
affirmed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.

This chain of scriptural custody, from Peter to Eusebius, brings us well
into the period of time in which the Codex Sinaiticus was penned and to the
doorstep of the Council of Laodicea. It is clear that the eyewitness accounts
and writings of the apostles were collected, preserved, and transmitted from

generation to generation during this span of time.

Apostle Peter Prins

Pantaenus

(24 Books) . (24 Books)

Origen

(\ er? BY \ oil
he ¥; py, no) aoe A
(a Nt ON

: 2, gah s D 69)
xt

Life of Jesus ~ ~— Pee. al 4 : : | ll 2 ides Sinaiticus
(AD 1-33) Kedron : ET Clemeit *Pamphilus Council of Laodicea
“22. Books (AD 350-363)

The New Testament chain of custody preserved the primacy and sacred
importance of the eyewitness documents and delivered them faithfully to
those who would later identify them publicly in the councils that established
our present canon of Scripture. These councils did not create the canon or
the current version of Jesus we know so well; they simply acknowledged
the canon and description of Jesus that had been provided by the

eyewitnesses.

THE LEAST WE CAN LEARN

Now let’s imagine for a moment that all the alleged Christian eyewitness
accounts have been destroyed. Imagine that all we have available to us is
the written record of a few students of these supposed eyewitnesses. If this
were the case, we would have to rely on the writings of Mark, Ignatius,
Polycarp, and Clement. This remaining record would certainly be sufficient

for us to learn the truth about Jesus; after all, Mark was tasked with

chronicling the memoir of Peter and wrote a thorough account. So let’s
make it a little more challenging. Let’s remove Mark’s gospel from
consideration and force ourselves to consider only the nonbiblical letters of
the other three students, even though these students made no conscious
effort to record the details of Jesus’s life and ministry. What would we learn
about Jesus from just these three men? Would their nominal description

affirm what our twenty-first-century Bible tells us?

\ Born Miraculously
Lid d Recognized as God

\\ Taught Divinely
, / Died on a Cross

a’ V Rose from the Dead
saa Reigns with the Father

Pi
grey | ey)
Sem VD
Life of esas : gl Peter
(AD 1-33)

From the earliest nonbiblical records, we would learn the following:
Jesus had been predicted by the Old Testament prophets; He was a man in
the line of David, conceived by the Holy Spirit as the only begotten Son of
God, born of the virgin Mary, and announced with a star. He came forth
from God and manifested God’s will and knowledge. He was baptized by
John the Baptist, lived a humble, unassuming, perfect, and sinless life,
spoke the words of God, and taught people many important divine truths
(including the principles we recognize from the Sermon on the Mount).
Although Jesus was anointed with oil, He was unjustly treated and
condemned, whipped, and ultimately executed on the cross. This execution
took place during the government of Pontius Pilate and the reign of Herod
the Tetrarch. Jesus’s death was a personal sacrifice He offered to God in our
behalf as a payment for the debt of our sin. Jesus proved His divinity by

physically resurrecting from the dead, appearing to Peter and the other

disciples, eating with them, and encouraging them to touch Him and see for
themselves. The disciples were so emboldened by their observations of the
risen Jesus that they became fearless, understanding that Jesus’s
resurrection ensured eternal life and the resurrection for all of those who
placed their faith in Him. Jesus returned to God the Father and now reigns
in heaven, even as He lives in everyone who has accepted His offer of
forgiveness and salvation. Jesus is the “Door,” the “Bread of Life,” the
“Eternal Word,” the “Son of God,” our “High Priest,” “Savior,” “Master,”
“Guardian,” “Helper,” “Refuge,” and “Lord.” Jesus and the Father are one;
Jesus possesses eternal glory and majesty. All creation belongs to Him and
is subject to Him. Jesus will judge the living and the dead. Jesus is “God.”
We would learn all of this, not on the basis of what is taught in the gospel
accounts, but on the basis of what is taught by the earliest first-century
students of the gospel writers (and only three of them, at that)! The letters
of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement confirm the accuracy of the Gospels.
Even if, as skeptics, we had some doubt about the minute details that exist
in each eyewitness account, there can be no doubt about the major themes
and claims of the Gospels. Jesus was described as God, walked with His
disciples, taught the masses, died on a cross, and rose from the dead. This
version of Jesus is not a late invention or exaggeration; it is the version of
Jesus that existed from the very first telling. This version of Jesus was
witnessed and accurately described by the gospel writers and confirmed by
their students. Unlike the man I interviewed, Jassen, whose early story was
not aligned with the version he provided twenty years later, the earliest
account of Jesus’s story (as given by the eyewitnesses and their students in
the first century) is aligned with the version we have two thousand years

later.

THE JEWISH RECORDS DIVISION

But how do we know if the other gospel details (not specifically mentioned
by the students of the apostles) are accurate? How do we know that these
portions of the Gospels weren’t corrupted in the period of time spanning
from the first century to the inking of Codex Sinaiticus? I came to trust the
detective’s notes in Jassen’s case because I had confidence in the record-
keeping ability of my records division. I understood the precise and careful
manner in which they copied and preserved the case files. Is there any good

reason to believe that the primitive, first-century Christians would be

equally willing and capable of such preservation?

In chapter 4 we looked at the role the apostles played as eyewitnesses. They
clearly understood the gravity and importance of their testimony. The
apostles recognized that their role in God’s plan was simply to tell others
about their experiences with Jesus and their observations of His
resurrection. It’s reasonable that people who saw themselves as critical
eyewitnesses would be careful to protect the accuracy of their testimony. In
the earliest years, their contribution came in the form of verbal testimony.
That’s reasonable, given the sense of urgency the apostles felt as they
eagerly awaited the imminent return of Jesus. But as the months and years
passed without the arrival of Christ, the apostles inked their testimony so
their observations could be shared with local church congregations. If the
Gospels were written early (during the time in which these eyewitnesses
actually lived), it is reasonable to expect that the witnesses would fact-
check the content of their testimony as it was being told to others. If, for

example, Mark’s gospel was written as early as the circumstantial evidence

in chapter 11 suggests, it’s reasonable to expect that Peter would have

caught (and corrected) any errors.

2. 3) THE COPYISTS AND SCRIBES WERE METICULOUS

AS The ancient Jewish religious culture was already well established in

the first century, and it was from this culture that the apostles and first
believers emerged. It’s clear that the Jews guarded Scripture with extreme
care and precision. From the postexile time of Ezra (and even before), there
were priests (Deut. 31:24—26) and scribes (called Sopherim) who were
given the responsibility of copying and meticulously caring for the sacred
text. The scribes continued to work in Jesus’s day and were mentioned
throughout the New Testament by the eyewitnesses who observed them
alongside the Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders. The Old
Testament Scriptures were revered and protected during this period of time,
largely because early believers considered them to be the holy Word of God
along with the New Testament documents. Paul described Luke’s gospel as
Scripture (1 Tim. 5:17-18), and Peter also described Paul’s letters as
Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15—16). Paul told the local churches to treat his letters
accordingly, making them available to other congregations so they could
read them during their meetings (Col. 4:16 and 1 Thess. 5:27). It’s
reasonable to conclude that the New Testament documents were handled in
a way that was similar to the manner in which other ancient Scripture was
cherished and preserved.

It’s difficult to know with complete
<\\ The Meticulous certainty the exact method in which the
*” Masoretes first-century Christian scribes copied

The Masoretes established 4 aNd cared for their sacred texts, but we

comprehensive procedures _ to

do know that they worked within a
protect the text against changes:

When they noted an obvious error in
the text, they labeled it as a
“kethibh” (“to be written”) and placed
a correction called a “qere” (“to be
read”) in the margin.

When they considered a_ word
textually, grammatically, or
exegetically questionable, they

placed dots above the word.

They kept detailed statistics as a
means of guarding against error.
Leviticus 8:8, for example, was
identified as the middle verse of the
Torah. In Leviticus 10:16, the word
“darash” was identified as middle
word in the Torah, and the “waw”
located in the Hebrew word gachon
in Leviticus 11:42 was identified as
the middle /etter of the Torah.

They also placed statistics at the
end of each book, including the total
number of verses, the total number
of words, and the total number of
letters. By assembling statistics such
as these, they could measure each
book mathematically to see if there
was any copyist error. (Refer to
Gleason Archer’s A Survey of Old
Testament Introduction.)

religious tradition that spanned hundreds
of years, both before and after the first
century. The Masoretic tradition, for
example, gives us a glimpse into the
obsessive care that Jewish scribes
historically took with their sacred texts.
Scribes known as the Masoretes (a group
of Jewish copyists living and working
primarily in Tiberias and Jerusalem)
took over the precise job of copying the
ancient Scripture and transmitting it for
later

generations. They developed

something now known as the Masoretic
Text.4Z8 These

recognized as an incredibly trustworthy

documents are

replica of the original Scripture, and
we’ve come to trust these texts because
we understand the manner in which they

were copied. To ensure the accuracy of

the Masoretic copies, the Masoretes developed a number of strict guidelines

to guarantee that every fresh copy was an exact reproduction of the original.

The rules of the Masoretes were every bit as comprehensive as any set of

regulations used in modern-day records divisions; they copied and handled

their documents with all the precision available to them.

History has demonstrated the remarkable accuracy of these ancient

scribes who worked under the conviction that the documents they were

copying were divine in nature. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in

Qumran confirms their amazing ability. In 1947, a Bedouin herdsman found
some unusual clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. The jars
contained a number of scrolls revealing the religious beliefs of monastic
farmers who lived in the valley from 150 BC to AD 70. When this group
saw the Romans invade the region, it apparently put its cherished scrolls in
the jars and hid them in the caves. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments
of almost every book in the Old Testament and, most importantly, a
complete copy of the book of Isaiah. This scroll was dated to approximately
100 BC; it was incredibly important to historians and textual experts
because it was approximately one thousand years older than any Masoretic
copy of Isaiah. The Dead Sea Scroll version of Isaiah allowed scholars to
compare the text over this period of time to see if copyists had been
conscientious. Scholars were amazed by what they discovered.

A comparison of the Qumran manuscripts of Isaiah “proved to be word

for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent

of the text.”L2 Some of the 5 percent differences were simply a matter of
spelling (like you might experience when using the word favor instead of
favour). Some were grammatical differences (like the presence of the word
and to connect two ideas or objects within a sentence). Finally, some were
the addition of a word for the sake of clarity (like the addition of the
Hebrew word for “light” to the end of 53:11, following “they shall see”).
None of these grammatical variations changed the meaning of the text in
any way.

What was it that compelled the ancient scribes to treat these documents
with such precision and meticulous care? It was clearly their belief that the
documents themselves were sacred and given to them by God. When Paul

and Peter identified the New Testament documents (such as the gospel of

Luke and the letters of Paul) as Scripture, they ensured that the documents
would be honored and cared for in a manner befitting the Masoretic
tradition. The first-century Christian scribes didn’t have access to
photocopiers, microfiche, or digital imaging like modern police-department
records divisions do, but they understood the importance of divine record
keeping, and they used the first-century equivalent in technology (the
meticulous tradition of their predecessors) to carefully guarantee the

accuracy of the texts.

£ 4 CONSISTENT AND WELL PRESERVED

; Given the evidence from the chain of custody and what we know
about the diligence of the first-century copyists, what is the most reasonable
inference we can draw about the accuracy of the Gospels? Unlike Jassen’s
statement in my cold-case investigation, the message of the apostles appears
unchanged over the span of time; it is the same in the first and twenty-first
centuries. Like the notes from the first detective, the details of the first-
century account appear to have been adequately preserved. The Jewish
records division was capable and efficient; it copied and guarded the

eyewitness accounts over time.

>) SO, WHY DO SOME CONTINUE TO DENY
S |T?
Some are still skeptical of the accuracy of the Gospels, in spite of the strong
circumstantial evidence that supports such a conclusion. Let’s see if a little

abductive reasoning can help us determine if any of the objections of critics

are reasonable when they describe the Scriptures as “fictitious.”

Some have argued that the writings of the first-century students of the
apostles either cannot be authenticated or fail to precisely quote the Gospels
in a way that would vouch for their accuracy. These critics claim that the
letters attributed to Ignatius, for example, are not truly from this student of
John. Many have also argued that those passages where these second-
generation students appear to be quoting from a gospel (such as their
references to the Sermon on the Mount) are not precise word-for-word
quotes; they argue that the students were only alluding to vague and
unreliable early oral accounts that hadn’t yet been inked on papyrus and

were corrupted long before they were ever finalized.

BUT...

While there has been controversy related to some of Ignatius’s letters, there
is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the seven letters we’ve isolated in
our chain of custody. Yes, there are additional letters that appear late in
history and are falsely attributed to Ignatius, but the seven letters we’ve
referenced are listed in the earliest records of Ignatius’s work, and they are
corroborated by Polycarp’s letter (which refers to Ignatius).

It is true that Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement often referenced passages
of Scripture in a way that captured the meaning of the passage without
quoting the specific verse word for word. But this was not uncommon of
authors at this time in history. Paul also paraphrased Scripture (the Old
Testament) on occasion (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:9, where Paul is likely paraphrasing
both Isa. 64:4 and Isa. 65:17). Polycarp’s and Clement’s use of paraphrase
is not evidence that the New Testament documents didn’t exist at the time
these second-generation authors wrote their letters any more than Paul’s use
of a paraphrase is evidence that the Old Testament did not exist when he

wrote his letters.

Most importantly, the Jesus described by these letters is identical to the
Jesus described by the apostolic eyewitness, even if the students of the

apostles paraphrased or used their own words to describe Him.

7») THERE ARE MANY COPYIST INSERTIONS THAT ARE

+ OBVIOUS CORRUPTIONS

Skeptics have also challenged some of the late insertions we talked about in
chapter 6. It does appear that some copyists intentionally corrupted the
manuscripts they were duplicating either to fill in a detail or to make some
theological point that was missing in the original text. If this is the case,
how can we trust that anything we have is reliable or accurate? If some

parts of the text have been corrupted, none of the text can be trusted.

BUT...

The fact that these corruptions are obvious should alert us to something.
Why are the corruptions and late additions we mentioned in chapter 6 so
evident? They stand out to us because we have hundreds of ancient copies
of the Gospels to compare to one another. There are no better-attested
ancient documents than the New Testament Gospels. By way of
comparison, the Greek researcher and historian Herodotus wrote The
Histories in the fifth century BC. We trust that we have an accurate copy of
this text even though we posses only eight ancient copies. By contrast, we
possess thousands of ancient copies of the New Testament documents.
These copies come to us from all over the ancient world surrounding the
Mediterranean. When compared to one another, the diverse manuscripts,
coming from a number of different Christian groups located in a number of
different regions, reveal the variations immediately. The textual deviations

are obvious because we have a rich treasure trove of manuscripts to

examine and compare. With this many copies at our disposal, we can easily
identify and eliminate the variations. As a result, we can remove the late
additions and reconstruct the original with a high degree of confidence.

Let me give you an example of how this process of comparison works.
Imagine that you are my patrol partner one afternoon as we are working
beat 514C. We get a call from dispatch on our MDT (the mobile computer
in our police unit) that summons us to a robbery taking place at a local
mini-mart. The dispatch operator sends us the call but accidentally types the
wrong street name and misspells the weapon. We recognize that there is no
street by this name in our city, but we know that a very similar street (with
the same hundred block) does exist in our beat. As we head in that
direction, we notify dispatch and receive a new communiqué with the
corrected street name. In this second dispatch, however, the operator makes
an additional error and misspells the word Markey. We again notify the
dispatcher and receive yet another message, but once again, there is a
misspelling. The dispatcher makes two more repeated efforts to correct the
misspelling but, in the pressure of the moment (remember a robbery is

occurring), is never quite able to do it without some form of error:

‘
; ao? ee sana ide :

“ne Y $ Z 7

4/2 SL 7. “Vy TAZ Z

q YY Dispatch: 244. Now 514C: aA s
5 Y,, a “A 142.6 Grosbit Street, 7-14 Market, WMA, blue-steel handbun Crosbie Street? 72
Zt ZY, Dispatch: 244 Now 54AC: Y

‘Ly 1426 Crosbie Street, t-11 Markey, WMA, blue-steel handbun 10-9?

i pg,

_ CAF Dispatch: 244 Now 5140:
2, ' 1426 Crosbie Street, 7-14 Market, WMA, blue-steel handbun © Weapon?

S/S A

YW
Y

hip A Ys
Wop, Vipatch: 244, Now 5140: | Yi
L” Ls j 1428 Crosbit Street, 7-11 Market, WMA, blue-steal handgun Location? eo
Birpy:, ¢
Bh, ; 1 Dispatch: 211 Now 514: V
QYyy. Gp 1426 Crosbit Street, 7-44 aalola’ WMA, blue-steal . 10-4 yy

Now let me ask you a question: With the robbery in progress and time of
the essence, should we stop at the curb and wait for dispatch to type the call
correctly, or do we have enough information, given the growing number of
duplicated lines the dispatcher is sending, to proceed to the call? The more
the dispatcher repeats the call, even with a number of typos and errors, the
more confidence we have that we know what kind of call we are handling
and where the crime is occurring. The more copies we possess, the more we
can compare them to determine the dispatcher’s original meaning, and the
more confidence we can have in our conclusion.

Something very similar to this occurs when we examine the ancient
biblical manuscripts. Yes, we can see the errors and late additions, but that’s

the beauty of our large manuscript collection: it allows us to remove the
inaccuracies with confidence.

>, THERE ARE MANY BIBLICAL NARRATIVES THAT DIFFER
*) FROM ONE ANOTHER

Skeptics have also observed the different way in which the gospel writers
described the same events and have argued that these variations constitute
contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled. These irreconcilable
differences, according to the skeptics, invalidate the accuracy of the biblical

account.

BUT ...

We’ ve already discussed the nature of eyewitness accounts in chapter 4, and
we now know that we should expect variations among true eyewitness
accounts. These expected variations are not a problem for those of us who
are working as detectives, so long as we can understand the perspective,
interests, and locations from which each witness observed the event. It’s our
duty, as responsible investigators, to understand how eyewitness statements
can be harmonized so we can get the most robust view of the event

possible.

THE MOST REASONABLE CONCLUSION

Let’s return once again to the process we know as abductive reasoning to
determine which explanation related to gospel accuracy is the most
reasonable. Once again we’ll list all the evidence that we’ve looked at in
this chapter, including the evidence cited by the skeptics. Alongside these
facts, we’ll consider the two possible explanations that can account for what

we have seen so far.

i Lj IPED . GO e- LEZ :
John's Students Confirm the hese of the Gospels B
Paul’s Students Confirm the Accuracy of the Gospels
Peter’s Students Confirm the Accuracy of the Gospels 7
The Eyewitnesses Were Conscientious and Protective
y, he Copyists and Scribes Were Meticulous <<) 4h :
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement Didn't 5: Soa Ly
M Quote Scripture Precisely ees
7 “here Are Many Copyist Insertions That’ f
Are Obvious Corruptions ~
Ze There Are Many Biblical Narratives That :
VA re os One anether eae is
i thy ae 7 Uy tiny,
Stead

ay 4 , LL LAPD A Phin
: a
5 HELE, fe;
° 4 Lip, Z

Ld de

Given the record of the second-generation disciples of John, Peter, and
Paul, we can have confidence that the essential teachings of the Gospels
have remained unchanged for over two thousand years. The first
explanation, that the Gospels and other New Testament documents were
written early and taught to the students of the apostles, is the most
reasonable conclusion, and this explanation is also consistent with the
evidence for early dating we examined in chapter 11. The evidence from the
chain of custody and the nature of the copyists support the first explanation,
and this explanation offers reasonable responses to the challenges offered
by skeptics. The second explanation, on the other hand, fails to adequately
account for the evidence offered by Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement. The
first explanation is feasible, straightforward, and logical. It exhausts all the
evidence we have assembled, and it is superior to the alternative

explanation. It is, once again, the most reasonable explanation.

THE GOSPELS PASS THE THIRD TEST

We’ve now evaluated the nature of the gospel eyewitness accounts in three

of the four areas in which we evaluate witnesses in criminal trials. The most

reasonable inference from the evidence indicates that the gospel writers
were present and corroborated. By studying the chain of custody and the
manner in which these records have been preserved over time, we can now
draw the reasonable conclusion that they are also accurate. Are we ready to
say that they are reliable? Almost. There is still one final area we need to

examine.

CASE NOTES

76. Penn Jillette and Raymond Joseph Teller, Penn and Teller: Bullshit!, Season 2, Episode 11,
Showtime Network (2005).

77, Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 2005), 35.

78. “Date,” Codex Sinaiticus, accessed April 12, 2012, http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/date.aspx.
79. For more information about Ignatius, refer to Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers
(London: Penguin, 1968). Kindle edition.

80. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (OrthodoxEbooks), Google
eBook, 126.

81. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (OrthodoxEbooks), Google eBook,
114.

82. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (OrthodoxEbooks), Google eBook,
154.

. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 114.

. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 114.

. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 124.

. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 114.

. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 114.

Is SBE és
CO N Im Io IB lb

. Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” A Collection of Gospels,
Epistles, and Other Pieces Extant from the Early Christian Centuries but Not Included in the
Commonly Received Canon of Scripture (Glasgow: Thomson, 1884), 85.

89. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 100.

90. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 123.

91. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 105.

92. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, 154.

93. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 113.

94. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 107.

95. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 112.

6. Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (OrthodoxEbooks), Google
eBook, 166.

97. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 98.

ice)
jee)

98. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 128.

Oo
jee)

99. Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” 85.

—
j=)
io

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 116.

_
=)
_

Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” 85.

fm
fo)
INO

Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” 85.

—_
[)
[se)

Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” 85.

a
oO
&

Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” 85.

—
oO
uo

Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” 85.

—
fo)
o>)

Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” 85.

—
io
N

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 124.

—
iS
[ee]

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 129.

—
iS
IO

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 116.

_
me
io

Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smymeans,” 85.

e
—
—

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 124.

—
—
N

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 124.

jae
=
ice)

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 125.

—
=
ats

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 125.

b
av
ul

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, 167.

_
—_
(op)

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, 154.

_
_
SJ

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 125.

i
=
ICO

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, 167.

=
_
ce)

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 99.

_—
N
io

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 114.

—
N
i

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 97.

—
N
N

Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 108.

—
ad

23. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 98.

—
No
BS

Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (OrthodoxEbooks), Google eBook,

_
a

3

_

5. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 116.

_

126. Ignatius, “Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp,” quoted in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of
the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1,
The Apostolic Fathers—Justin Martyr—Irenaeus (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885), 95.
127. Ignatius, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans,” 86.
128. For more information about Polycarp, refer to Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers
(London: Penguin, 1968), Kindle edition.
129. Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” The Epistle to the Philippians, ed. J. J. S.
Perowne (Cambridge University Press, 1895), 26.
130. Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 25.
131. Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 25.

a

—
De

Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 26.

3

—

Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 25.

—_
ice)
&

Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 27.

a
Ww
Ol

Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 25.

ia
Ww
a

Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 25.

=
(ee)
MI

Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 26.

—
\ee)
ICO

Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 25.

a
\se)
IO

Polycarp, “The Epistle of S. Polycarp,” quoted in Apostolic Fathers, eds. J. B. Lightfoot and J.
. Harmer (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger), 95.

_
A
=

. Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 25.

i
pS
an

. Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 25.

it
pes
No

. Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 24.

i
pS
WW

. Polycarp, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” 24.

_—
~
BS

. For more information about Irenaeus, see Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, The Early Church

Fathers (London: Routledge, 1996).

145. For more information about Hippolytus, see Christopher Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus and the
Church of Rome in the earlier part of the third century. From the newly-discovered Philosophumena
(Charleston: Nabu Press, 2010).

146. For more information about Linus and Clement, see George Edmundson, The Church in Rome
in the First Century (Charleston: BiblioBazaar, 2009).

147. For more information about Clement, refer to Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers
(London: Penguin, 1968), Kindle edition.

148. Clement of Rome, “Epistle to the Corinthians,” Documents of the Christian Church, eds. Henry
Bettenson and Chris Maunder (Oxford University Press, 2011), 67.

149. Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger),
2;

150. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 10.

—

151. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 27.
152. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 11.
153. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 11.
154. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 11.
155. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 11.
156. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 16.
157. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 22.
158. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 16.
159. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 7.

160. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 15.
161. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 10.
162. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 22.
163. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 14.
164. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 22.
165. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 14.

166. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 22.

167. Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 22.

—
-

Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 27.

69. For more information about the first popes, see Thomas Meyrick, Lives of the Early Popes. St.
Peter to St. Silvester (BiblioBazaar, 2009).

-_—
ee

170. For more information about Justin Martyr, see The Writings of Justin Martyr, eds. Alexander
Roberts and James Donaldson (Berkeley: Apocryphile Press, 2007).

171. For more information about Tatian, see Emily J. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century: The
Case of Tatian, Routledge Early Church Monographs (London: Routledge, 2003).

172. For more information about the early popes in North Africa, see Stephen J. Davis, The Early
Coptic Papacy: The Egyptian Church and Its Leadership in Late Antiquity, Popes of Egypt (The
American University in Cairo Press, 2005).

173. For more information about Pantaenus, see Vincent J. O’Malley, Saints of Africa (Huntington,

IN: Our Sunday Visitor 2001).

174. For more information about Clement of Alexandria, see Philip Schaff, Fathers of the Second
Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria, Kindle edition.

175. For more information about Origen, see Joseph W. Trigg, Origen, The Early Church Fathers
(London: Routledge, 1998).

176. For more information about Pamphilus, see History of the Martyrs in Palestine: Discovered in a
Very Ancient Syriac Manuscript (Charleston: Nabu Press, 2010).

177. For more information about Eusebius of Caesarea, see Robert Van De Weyer, Eusebius: The
First Christian Historian, Early Christian Writings (Berkhamsted, UK: Arthur James Ltd, 1997).
178. For more information about the role of the Masoretes in the transmission of the Bible, see
Norman Geisler and William Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1986).

179. Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 2011), Kindle
edition, Kindle locations 473-75.

Chapter 14 OF
WERE THEY BIASED?

The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of
Jesus is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense
of it.... How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a
common criminal? Christians turned to their scriptures to try and
understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous
One of God’s suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah
53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is
killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their
scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must
have vindicated him. And so Christians came to think of Jesus as
one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to
heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures....

But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians

started circulating the story of his resurrection. L282
—Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar, professor of religious studies, and author of
Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think
They Are

THREE MOTIVES

Everyone has a motive. We tend to think of criminals when we hear the
word, but jurors must also consider motive when examining and evaluating
eyewitnesses who have testified in a trial. Jurors learn that they must think

about whether or not a witness was “influenced by a factor such as bias or

prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a
personal interest in how the case is decided.” There are two factors at work
in a question like this: bias and motive. Were the disciples lying about the
resurrection, as Bart Ehrman claims? Were their claims based on religious
expectation or bias? If so, what was it that they were hoping to gain from
this elaborate lie? If the apostles wanted Jesus to be God, an elaborate lie
wouldn’t actually accomplish this, at least for the apostles. Lies might fool
those who weren’t there, but they wouldn’t fool those who knew better.
What did the disciples hope to gain if their stories were false? Let’s study
the issue of motive and finish our journey with an examination of Christian
eyewitness bias.

In all my years working homicides, I’ve come to discover that only three
broad motives lie at the heart of any murder. As it turns out, these three
motives are also the same driving forces behind other types of misbehavior;
they are the reasons why we sometimes think what we shouldn’t think, say

what we shouldn’t say, or do what we shouldn’t do.

FINANCIAL GREED

This is often the driving force behind the crimes that I investigate. Some
murders, for example, result from a botched robbery. Other murders take
place simply because they give the suspect a financial advantage. As an
example, I once worked a homicide committed by a husband who didn’t

want his wife to receive a portion of his retirement.

SEXUAL OR RELATIONAL DESIRE
I’ve also investigated a number of murders that were sexually (or

relationally) motivated. Some sexual attackers murder their victims so they

can’t testify later. Some murders occur simply because a jealous boyfriend

couldn’t bear to see his girlfriend dating another man.

PURSUIT OF POWER

Finally, some people commit murders to achieve or maintain a position of
power or authority. It might be a rivalry between two people who are trying
to get the same promotion. Others have killed simply because the victim

dishonored or “disrespected” them in front of a group of peers.

Sex, money, and power are the motives for all the crimes detectives
investigate. In fact, these three motives are also behind lesser sins as well.
Think about the last time you did something you shouldn’t have. If you
examine the motivation carefully, you’ll probably see that it fits broadly
into one of these three categories.

The presence of motive doesn’t always mean that a suspect actually
committed the crime. Someone might have the motive to do something
criminal, yet be able to resist the temptation to act. On the flip side,
however, defense attorneys often cite the lack of motive when they are
making a case for their client’s innocence. “Why would my client have
done such a thing when it would not benefit him in any way?” That’s a fair
question and one that we need to ask as we examine the claims of the

apostles.

APOSTOLIC MOTIVATION

Did the alleged eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and ministry have an ulterior
motive when writing the Gospels? Do we have any good reason to believe
that the apostles were driven to lie by one of the three motives we have

described? No. There is nothing in history (neither Christian history nor

testimony related to Jesus:

secular history) to suggest that the disciples had anything to gain from their

py FHE APOSTLES WERE NOT DRIVEN BY FINANCIAL GAIN

Judges advise juries that they may
consider motive as they assess the
guilt of defendants:

“The People are not required to
prove that the defendant had a
motive to commit (any of the
crimes/the crime) charged. In
reaching your verdict you may,
however, consider whether the
defendant had a motive.”

“Having a motive may be a factor
tending to show that the defendant

There are many ancient accounts
describing the lives of the
apostles following the period of
time recorded in the book of Acts.
Local believers in a variety of
ancient communities wrote about
the activities of the individual
disciples as they preached the
gospel across the region. None of

these texts describe any of the

is guilty. Not having a motive may be
a factor tending to show the
defendant is not guilty” (Section 370,
Judicial Council of California
Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).

disciples as men who possessed
material wealth. The disciples
repeatedly appear as men who
were chased from location to
location, continually abandoning whatever property they owned and
vacating whatever homes they were borrowing. The disciples were
accustomed to living in this manner; they decided to leave their homes and
families when they first began to follow Jesus. Peter acknowledged as much
when he told Jesus, “Behold, we have left our own homes and followed
You” (Luke 18:28). The disciples rejected all material wealth, believing that
the truth of the gospel provided eternal life, something that was vastly more
valuable. Paul described their impoverished financial condition many times,
reminding his listeners that the apostles were “both hungry and thirsty, and

[were] poorly clothed, and [were] roughly treated, and [were] homeless” (1

Cor. 4:11). The apostles lived “as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet
behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, as sorrowful yet always
rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing
all things” (2 Cor. 6:9-10). If the disciples and apostles were lying for
financial gain, their lies didn’t seem to be working. Those who watched
Paul closely knew that he was dedicated to spiritual life rather than material
gain; he “coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes” (Acts 20:33).

The other apostles were in a very similar financial situation. When Peter
and John were in Jerusalem in the first half of the first century, they were
approached by a poor disabled man who asked them for money. Peter told
the man, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you:
In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!” (Acts 3:6). The disciples
were consistently described as having chosen a life of material poverty in
pursuit of spiritual truth. When James described the rich (as in James 5:1-
5), he always did so in the second person. He didn’t include himself in their
numbers. The apostles never described themselves as wealthy; instead, they
warned those who were rich that their wealth could indeed threaten their
perspective on eternal matters. Like the other apostolic writers, James
described his fellow believers as joyfully impoverished: “Did not God
choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom
which He promised to those who love Him?” (James 2:5).

The apostles gained nothing financially from their testimony of Jesus’s
life and ministry. The New Testament letters of Paul were written very early
in history to people who knew Paul personally. If he was lying about his
financial situation, his readers would have known it. All the nonbiblical
accounts related to the lives of the apostles, whether legitimate or

legendary, affirm the poverty of the disciples as they traveled the world to

proclaim their testimony. The most reasonable inference from the early
record of the New Testament documents and the agreement of the
nonbiblical record is that the writers of the New Testament were as
contentedly penniless as they proclaimed. It is reasonable to conclude that
financial greed was not the motive that drove these men to make the claims
they made in the Gospels. In fact, they remained impoverished primarily

because of their dedication to their testimony.

}s) THE APOSTLES WERE NOT DRIVEN BY SEX OR
A> RELATIONSHIPS

It’s equally unreasonable to suggest that the apostles were motivated by lust

or relationships. While the New Testament documents say little about the
“love lives” of the apostolic eyewitnesses, we do know that Peter was
married and had a mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14). Paul confirmed this and
suggested that Peter wasn’t the only one who was married when, in his
letter to the Corinthians, he asked, “Do we not have a right to take along a
believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord
and Cephas [Peter]?” (1 Cor. 9:5). The early church fathers also suggested
that all of the apostles were married, with the possible exception of the

youngest apostle, John. Clement of Alexandria wrote that Peter and Philip

had children28= and that Paul, although married, did not take his wife with

him when testifying as an apostle:

The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it
would have been an inconvenience for his ministry.... [The
apostles], in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted
themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their

wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage

relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in

dealing with housewives.£82

Clement suggested here that the apostles were not only married, but also
denied themselves sexual contact with their wives after the ascension in
order to better minister to those they sought to reach with their testimony.

Ignatius also referred to the apostles as married men:

For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their
feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of
Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men.
For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite,

but out of regard for the propagation of mankind 183

Like Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius also reported that the apostles held
a view of sexuality that placed their testimony ahead of their personal
desire. This was affirmed by another early Christian author named

Tertullian, who wrote in the early third century:

[The] Apostles, withal, had a “licence” to marry, and lead wives
about (with them). They had a “licence,” too, to “live by the

Gospel.”184

The apostles had a right to bring their wives with them on their journeys,
and some may have done so. In any case, it is clear from both the biblical
record and the nonbiblical history that the apostles were careful to live their
sexual lives in a manner that was beyond reproach. In fact, while other men

within the culture often had more than one wife, the apostles allowed men

to rise to leadership only if they limited themselves to one wife (1 Tim.
3:2).

The twelve apostles were not twelve single men in search of a good time.
They weren’t using their position or testimony to woo the local eligible
women. If the apostles were motivated by sexual desire, there is certainly
no record of it in the ancient writings of the time and no hint of it in their
own texts. They were married men (most likely) who held chastity and
sexual purity in high regard. The most reasonable inference, given what we
know about the lives of the apostles, is that sexual or relational desire was
not the motive that drove these men to make the claims they made in the

Gospels.

3) THE APOSTLES WERE NOT DRIVEN BY THE PURSUIT OF
4+ POWER

Some skeptics have argued that the apostles were motivated by a desire to

be powerful within their individual religious communities. They will often
point to the power that Christian leaders eventually had in Rome when
Christianity became the state-sponsored religion in the fourth century.
There is no doubt that the popes of the Roman Catholic Church eventually
became incredibly powerful both religiously and politically. But when we
examine the lives of the first-century apostles, they bear little resemblance
to the lives of the Roman Catholic popes.

Power has its perks, not the least of which is the ability to protect oneself.
This kind of power was never available to the apostles. The early Christian
movement immediately faced hostility from those who actually did possess
power in the first century. Rumors quickly spread that the Christians
practiced rituals that offended Roman sensibilities and were unwilling to

worship Emperor Nero as divine. Tacitus recorded Nero’s response:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from
whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during
the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius
Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the
moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the
evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful
from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty;
then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted,
not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against
mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths.
Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and
perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames
and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had

expired. 185

At this early point in Christian history, leadership within the Christian
community was a liability rather than an asset. Prominent believers and
leaders who openly admitted their allegiance to Jesus (“pleaded guilty”) and
refused to recant this allegiance were the first to die. It was during this time
in history when Peter and Paul were executed in Rome, but they weren’t the
only apostles whose prominence as Christian leaders cost them their lives.
The nonbiblical histories and writings related to the lives and ministries of
the twelve disciples consistently proclaimed that the apostles were
persecuted and eventually martyred for their testimony. The apostolic

eyewitnesses refused to change their testimony about what they saw, even

though they faced unimaginable torture and execution. Only John appears

to have escaped martyrdom, but he, too, was exiled and persecuted for his

position as an apostle.

Bias and
Prejudice

Bias:

“An inclination of temperament or
outlook; especially a personal and
sometimes unreasoned judgment.”

Prejudice:

“(1): Preconceived judgment or
opinion (2): An adverse opinion or
leaning formed without just grounds
or before sufficient knowledge.”

(Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, 11th edition)

Persecution owas the uniform
experience of the apostles, long before
they were finally executed for their faith.
Paul’s experience, as he told it in his
letter to the Corinthians, was sadly

normative for the apostles:

Five times I received from the Jews
thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was
beaten with rods, once I was stoned,
three times I was shipwrecked, a
night and a day I have spent in the

deep. I have been on _ frequent

journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers

from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the

city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among

false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many

sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold

and exposure. Apart from such external things, there is the daily

pressure upon me of concern for all the churches. (2 Cor. 11:24-

28)

As the apostles rose to positions of leadership, they made themselves the

target of persecution and abuse. The more prominent they became, the more

they risked death at the hands of their adversaries. The most reasonable

inference, given what we know about their deaths, is that the pursuit of
power and position was not the motive that drove these men to make the
claims they made in the Gospels.

If a defense attorney were representing any of the apostles, defending
them against the accusation that they lied about their testimony, the attorney
could fairly ask the question “Why would my client have done such a thing
when it would not benefit him in any way?” Certainly there was no benefit
to any of the apostles in the three areas we would expect to motivate such a

lie.

& 4 FREE FROM ULTERIOR MOTIVE

Motive is a key factor that jurors must assess when evaluating the
reliability of witnesses. That’s why judges advise jurors to ask questions
like “Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or
her testimony?” (See chapter 4.) We need to know if something other than
the simple desire to report the truth motivated the witnesses to say what
they said. As we examine the motives of the gospel writers, it’s clear that
the forces that typically compel people to lie didn’t drive the authors. The
apostles were free from ulterior motive.

But what about bias? Even if they didn’t possess one of these three self-
serving motives, how do we know that the gospel writers weren’t simply
biased? Judges encourage jurors to find out if the witness was “influenced
by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone
involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided.” If a
witness held a preconception or partiality as he or she watched the event,
that bias may have influenced how the witness interpreted what he or she
saw. Bias can cause people to see something incorrectly. Was this the case

with the apostles?

J) SO, IS THIS WHY SOME CONTINUE TO

S DENY IT?
Some skeptics base their distrust of the Gospels (and of the nonbiblical
accounts of the apostles’ lives following Jesus’s ascension) on the possible
presence of bias. Even though there is no evidence to suggest that the
apostles were motivated by greed, lust, or power, critics are still suspicious
of the gospel accounts. Let’s look at the reasons behind their suspicions and

include them in our final evaluation utilizing abductive reasoning.

yh) THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BY CHRISTIANS

= § Skeptics have argued that the Gospels cannot be trusted because they
were not authored by objective non-Christians. The New Testament records,
according to this view, were written by biased Christians who were trying to
convince us of their religious perspective. Critics claim that these Christians
observed the events through a charged religious lens and then reported the
events from this viewpoint. As a result, the gospel narratives are biased and

unreliable.

BUT...

This is not an accurate description of what occurred in the first century as
the gospel eyewitnesses observed the life and ministry of Jesus. Let me give
you an example from one of my cases to illustrate the point. Many years
ago, when I was working robberies, I had a case in which a local bank was
robbed. The suspect (Mark Hill) entered the bank in the afternoon and
waited in line to approach the teller. He stood in the lobby for two or three
minutes, waiting to walk up to the counter, where he eventually gave the
teller a “demand note” and flashed a handgun in his waistband. While he

was waiting for the opportunity, a bank employee (Kathy Smalley) saw him

standing in line. Kathy was working as an assistant manager and had a desk
located in the lobby, adjacent to the teller line. She recognized Mark as he
waited for his turn. Kathy had attended high school with Mark and
recognized him because he was a talented (and popular) athlete. Even
though many years had passed, Kathy still recognized him with certainty.
Mark, on the other hand, was focused as he waited to rob the bank. He
never even looked up to see Kathy watching him. He eventually approached
the teller (Debra Camacho) and completed his robbery. Debra gave Mark
the money he demanded and then pushed the silent alarm button as he
turned to walk away. She motioned quickly to Kathy, who was sitting
within her view.

Kathy recognized the fact that Debra had just been robbed. She couldn’t
believe it. She never considered Mark to be the kind of person who would
commit a robbery. In fact, she thought Mark got an athletic scholarship after
high school and assumed he became a successful athlete and college
graduate. When she first saw Mark enter the lobby, she never thought he
was about to commit a robbery. After the fact, however, she was certain that
Mark was the robber. She was now a true believer in Mark’s guilt. After all,
she saw it with her own eyes. You might say that Kathy was now a “Mark
Hillian” believer related to the robbery. So let me ask you a question.
Should I trust her testimony? Isn’t she too biased to be a reliable witness?
Kathy is not neutral about what she saw in the bank. She has a perspective
and an opinion about the identity of the robber. She’s a Mark Hillian
believer; she is certain that of all the possible truths related to who
committed the robbery, only one is accurate. If she’s this biased, how can I

trust what she has to say?

Can you see how ridiculous this concern would be? Kathy didn’t start off
with a bias against Mark or a presupposition that tainted her observations.
In fact, she was shocked to find that Mark was capable of committing such

a crime. She was not a “Mark Hillian” believer until after the fact.

.g I am SHOCKED!
I know that quy
from school!

That's Mark Hilll J

aT Y

—

Kathy is now convinced that

Mark Hill is the bank robber | i}
as

cn
seh - = a! GaP,
“Mark Hillian” believer: ;

In a similar way, the authors of the Gospels were not “Christian”
believers until after they observed the life and ministry of Jesus. Much has
been written about the fact that Jews in first-century Palestine were looking
for a Messiah who would save them from Roman oppression. They were
expecting a military liberator, not a spiritual savior. Even Bart Erhman
admits that the disciples found themselves asking the question “How could
Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal?” They didn’t
expect Jesus (as the military messiah) to die, and they certainly didn’t
expect Him to come back to life.

The Gospels are filled with examples of the disciples misunderstanding
the predictions and proclamations of Jesus. There are many examples of
doubt and hesitancy on the part of those who witnessed Jesus’s life. The

skeptical disciples continually asked Jesus for clarification, and Thomas,

after spending three years with Jesus, still wouldn’t believe His prediction
of the resurrection until he saw Jesus with his own eyes and touched Jesus
with his own hands. The apostles became convinced of Jesus’s deity after
they observed His life and resurrection. They didn’t start off as Christians
any more than Kathy started off as a “Mark Hillian.” The disciples ended up
as Christians (certain that Jesus was God) as a result of their observations,
just as Kathy ended up as a “Mark Hillian” (certain that he was the robber)
as a result of her observations. The disciples were not prejudicially biased;

they were evidentially certain.

} >) THE DEATH NARRATIVES OF THE APOSTLES WERE
A> WRITTEN BY CHRISTIANS

Skeptics have also argued that little or no weight can be given to the fact

that the apostles were allegedly martyred for their testimony because the
“histories” that describe their martyrdom are largely Christian legends
written by believers. How do we even know that these martyrdoms really
occurred if the only records we have are biased stories and legends filled

with miraculous tales?

BUT ...

As described in chapter 1, we can’t allow the description of miraculous
occurrences to automatically disqualify the ancient accounts. If we are
going to claim that the ancient stories are biased (because they were written
by Christians), we cannot reject them with a bias of our own (against
supernaturalism). While it is true that some accounts related to the
martyrdom of the apostles are more reliable than others, we have no reason
to reject all of them as historically inaccurate. The deaths of Peter, Paul,

James, and John are very well attested, and the remaining martyrdom

accounts of the apostles (with the possible exception of Matthias and Philip)
are sufficiently documented to provide us with confidence that we know the
truth about their deaths.

Most importantly, there aren’t any ancient non-Christian accounts that
contradict the claims of the Christian authors who wrote about the deaths of
the eyewitness disciples. It’s not as though we have competing accounts
related to the testimony of these men. We don’t have ancient Christians on
one side, claiming that the apostles died because they proclaimed the truth
about Jesus and refused to recant their testimony, and ancient non-
Christians on the other side, claiming that the apostles eventually confessed
that it was all a lie. There are no ancient authors claiming anything other
than what the Christians described; there are no contradictory accounts that
portray the apostles as liars who confessed their lies when pressured. The
unanimous testimony of antiquity is that the early Christian eyewitnesses
suffered for their testimony but stayed the course. They didn’t flinch, and

they never changed their story.

THE MOST REASONABLE CONCLUSION

Abductive reasoning can help us decide between two possible conclusions
related to the bias or motive that the apostolic eyewitnesses may have had
when writing their Gospels or testifying to their observations. Let’s list the
evidence one final time, alongside the two possible explanations that can

account for what we have seen so far:

g Financial Gain@ - e ey Cite | =

“The Apostles Were Not Dien - a I PP wiles |
Sex or Relationship “BE | =a actally- 7 they]

The Apostles Were Not Driven by the “74 = pti ey

“Pursuit of Power SAI:

“The Gospels Were Written by — w By aA

Christians a se AI.

The apostles lacked evil intent. They simply couldn’t benefit from lying
about what they saw. In fact, they would have been far better off if they had
kept their mouths shut. What could they possibly have gained from this
elaborate lie? It’s clear that the gospel writers appeared to be more
concerned about eternal life than material gain. Could a lie about Jesus
make His spiritual claims true? Does it make sense that the disciples would
forsake everything for spiritual claims they knew were untrue? The
evidence from history once again supports the first explanation better than
the second. It offers reasonable responses to the challenges offered by
skeptics. The second explanation, on the other hand, is simply unable to
account adequately for the lack of motive on the part of the apostles. The
first explanation is feasible, straightforward, and logical. It exhausts all the
evidence we have assembled, and it is superior to the alternative

explanation. It is, once again, the most reasonable explanation.

THE GOSPELS PASS THE LAST TEST

We’ve examined the four important areas that jurors must consider when

determining the reliability of eyewitnesses. The most reasonable inference

is that the gospel writers were present, corroborated, accurate, and
unbiased. If this is the case, we can conclude with confidence that their
testimony is reliable. We’ve done the heavy lifting needed to determine the
reliability of these accounts; we’ve been diligent and faithful as jurors and

have considered the evidence. It’s time to make a decision.

CASE NOTES

180. Bart Ehrman, from his closing statement at a debate with William Lane Craig, “Is There
Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” held at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester,
181. Clement, quoted in Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University,
1980), 269.

182. Clement, quoted in Women in Religion: The Original Sourcebook of Women in Christian
Thought, eds. Elizabeth A. Clark and Herbert Richardson (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 29. For
more information related to Clement’s writings, refer to Alexander Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers,
vol. 2, Early Church Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988).

183. Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, 162. For more information related to
Ignatius’s writings, refer to Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., Ante-
Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1950).

184. Tertullian, quoted in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson,
vol. 4, Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second
(Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885), 55.

185. Cornelius Tacitus, Works of Cornelius Tacitus. Includes Agricola, The Annals, A Dialogue
concerning Oratory, Germania and The Histories (MobileReference, 2009), Kindle edition, Kindle

locations 6393-6400.

Postscript

BECOMING A “TWO DECISION”
CHRISTIAN

Santiago Ortega turned the key and started his tired 1975 Triumph Tr6. The
engine sputtered and backfired, spouting smoke into the small parking lot
adjacent to the cheap hotel Santiago called home. Santiago was addicted to
rock cocaine, and his addiction preoccupied much of his day. He was either
smoking rock or trying to find a way to pay for it, and he was increasingly
desperate.

He hadn’t seen his wife in weeks. His family was scattered across the
county and wouldn’t offer him refuge, especially now. His father and
brother were in federal prison for bank robbery, and sadly, Santiago was
following in their footsteps. He’d already committed seven bank robberies
in Los Angeles County before he did his first one in our city. I was working
on our undercover surveillance team at the time, and an informant gave us a
tip that led us to Santiago’s hotel. We were sitting in the parking lot when
Santiago fired up his battered and weary convertible.

While Santiago looked like the man in the bank surveillance photographs,
we weren’t sure if he was the robber we were looking for. We would find
out shortly. Santiago backed out of the parking lot and drove into the city of
Long Beach. Our team carefully followed him; five officers and a sergeant
trailing our suspect in a series of unremarkable midsized cars. Santiago
didn’t make it far before he succumbed to his addiction. At the first traffic
light Santiago fired up a homemade rock pipe and filled the interior of his

small car with smoke. He was nearly invisible in the hazy capsule of the

Triumph. Somehow he managed to drive, bathed in smoke, without ever
rolling down his windows. He continued for approximately two miles until
he came to a Home Savings and Loan.

Santiago parked his car at the edge of the parking lot, just out of view
from the bank doors. He exited, smoothed out his shirt, and pressed down
his hair. He looked about the parking lot nervously as he walked toward the
bank entrance. One of our team members, dressed in jeans and a T-shirt,
jumped out of his car and followed Santiago into the business. He
communicated to the rest of our team via his portable radio. Like Mark Hill,
Santiago was a “demand-note” bank robber. In his past robberies, he never
had to show his gun to the tellers; his note was enough to cause them to
comply. Today’s teller was no exception. She emptied her drawer and gave
Santiago the money; he quickly turned and walked from the bank. The
customers in the lobby were completely unaware that a robbery had even
occurred.

But my partner knew. He quickly radioed from the interior of the bank
and told us that Santiago was, in fact, a bank robber. By this time, Santiago
had already run to the Triumph and was now fleeing the parking lot. Our
team quickly moved in behind him. In situations like these, we would
typically conduct a tactical arrest at the nearest red light, maneuvering our
cars into position to prevent the suspect’s escape. But Santiago now had a
heightened awareness of his surroundings, and he became suspicious of one
of our surveillance vehicles. The chase was on.

Intoxicated rock-cocaine addicts and aging Triumphs are a recipe for
disaster, especially when they are partnered in an effort to run from the
police. Santiago crashed the car in the first mile of the pursuit. I was the

case agent; it was my responsibility to handcuff Santiago and drive him

back to the police station for booking. Along the way I was able to talk to
him about his life and his future. I began with a simple observation.

“Santiago, you look terrible,” I said.

“T know,” he replied, shaking his head. To his credit, Santiago Ortega was
a broken man, remorseful and repentant about his life and crime spree.

“How long did you think you could go on like this?” I asked the question
as a matter of genuine concern. Santiago’s eyes were red and infected; he
was gaunt and disheveled. He looked like he hadn’t eaten in days.

“T knew it was coming to an end, really I did. I don’t even know how it
got this crazy. I’m not really a bad person. I know better.” He was
remarkably talkative and honest.

“So why are you doing this?” I asked.

“T’m a junkie. I want to stop. But I always end up back here. You know,
I’m actually married and my wife is a beautiful lady. She left me when I
started up again.” Santiago began to cry, and his tears caused him to wince
in the pain from his infected eyes. “A couple years ago I went with her to a
crusade and I got saved. She did too. But here I am, still messed up.”
Santiago told me about his experience at the large evangelistic stadium
event he attended. He told me that he was moved by what the preacher said
at that event, and he accepted the invitation to walk down from the stands
and become a follower of Jesus. He thought his decision that night would
change his life forever.

“So I guess you probably think I’m some kind of hypocrite, right? Just
another messed-up Christian.” He didn’t know that he was talking to a
follower of Jesus.

Santiago made a decision to trust Jesus for his salvation, but he never

made a decision to examine the life and teaching of Jesus evidentially.

Santiago failed to make a second decision to examine what he believed. He
was unable to see his faith as anything more than subjective opinion as he
struggled to live in a world of objective facts. As a result, his beliefs
eventually surrendered to the facts of his situation and the pressures of his
addiction. He allowed his friends and family situation to influence him,
rather than becoming a source of inspiration and truth for his family and
neighborhood. Santiago was a one-decision Christian, and that decision was
unsupported by a reasonable examination of the evidence.

I wrote back and forth with Santiago in the years that followed. He was
ultimately convicted and sentenced to many years in federal prison. He
finally found himself in a place where he had the time and opportunity to

examine the evidence for Christianity.

DECISIONS, “BELIEF THAT,” AND “BELIEF
IN”

My journey was just the opposite of Santiago Ortega’s. I decided to
investigate the claims of Christianity (to see if they could be defended)
before I ever decided to call myself a Christian. My investigation (some of
which I described in section 2) led me to conclude that the Gospels were
reliable. But this conclusion presented me with a dilemma. When the jury in
chapter 4 established that Jerry Strickland was a reliable witness, they
trusted his testimony related to the identity of the robber. I now had to take
a similar step with the reliable gospel eyewitnesses. It’s one thing, however,
to accept the historicity of locations or key characters in the biblical
natrative; it’s another to accept what the Gospels were telling me about
Jesus. Did Jesus really demonstrate His deity as the gospel eyewitnesses
claimed? Did He truly rise from the dead? Did He speak the truth about

who He was and about the nature of eternal life? I understood that deciding

in favor of the most reasonable inference would require me to release my
naturalistic presuppositions entirely. C. S. Lewis was correct; the claims
about Jesus, if true, were of infinite importance. This decision would likely
change my life forever.

I knew I could never take a blind leap of faith. For me, the decision to
move beyond “belief that” to “belief in” needed to be a reasonable decision
based on the evidence. I ask jurors to do this every time I present a case—to
assemble the circumstantial evidence and draw the most reasonable
inference from what they have examined. That’s what I did as I assembled

the cumulative case for the reliability of the Gospels:

Unintentional ;

Support aie ® Polycarp
fase TETEO The Gospel The Gospels “ofirms (Q) corti
oe he ‘ l Writers Were Were Accurately \ we

: Corroborated Delivered
RS ° Clement
/| Confirms
Appropriate Language f a
" eae (, <———.
ve) Vv ate vik

i. So Confirms
Copied Protected :
Meticulously Conscientiously

©) Not Driven by
EGY Financial Gain
BOD

of Not Driven by

effe \:- <a)
Correct Locations ve Wonton
Nonbiblical
Corroboration G) rn}

Jewish

Corroboration Archaeology

Silence
Silence (AD 70)
(AD 6f-10)

o \,
ne

Silence (AD 61-65)

Acts nyse “A Nay
(AD 57-00 /
Writers Were Writers Had No

(5)
Paul Cites Luke Lake i Mark Py f .
resent UHerior Motive
(AD 53-57) (Ap 50-53) (ap 15.50)

Sexual Lust

I knew that my concerns about the Gospels had always been rooted in the
miraculous events the accounts described. Philosophical naturalism
prevented me from taking miracles seriously. But the apostles claimed to
see miracles, and in every way that we typically evaluate eyewitnesses, the
gospel authors passed the test.

I can remember the day that I finally surrendered my naturalistic biases
and moved from “belief that” to “belief in.” I was sitting in a church service
with my wife. I don’t remember exactly what the pastor was talking about,
but I remember leaning over and telling my wife that I was a believer. Much
like Mark Walker, the officer who trusted in his bulletproof vest, in that
singular moment I moved from believing that the Gospels were reliable
eyewitness accounts to trusting in what they told me about Jesus.

The gospel eyewitnesses had something very specific to say about Jesus.
They did not give their lives sacrificially for personal opinions about God;
they gave their lives because their claims were an objective matter of life
and death. They knew that Jesus offered more than a guideline for personal
behavior. They understood that Jesus was “the way, and the truth, and the
life” and that “no one comes to the Father but through” Him (John 14:6).
The apostolic eyewitnesses gave their lives to help us understand that we, as
fallen, imperfect humans, are in desperate need of a Savior. They died as
martyrs trying to show us that Jesus was, in fact, the Savior who could
provide forgiveness for our imperfection. Peter was clear about this when

testifying to others:

You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the
Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good
and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with
Him. We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of

the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging
Him ona cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted
that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who
were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank
with Him after He arose from the dead. And He ordered us to
preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One
who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the
dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name
everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. (Acts
10:38-43)

The apostles recognized that their message was a life-saving cure for
what was (and is) killing all of us; they gave their lives to save ours, so we
could save even more. When I recognized the power of this message, I
moved from “belief that” to “belief in.” People started to notice a change
almost immediately. It wasn’t as though I was trying hard to behave
differently or follow a new set of rules; I didn’t even know all the “rules”
when I first decided to trust Christ. But I did know this: I was grateful. I
began to understand not only the true nature of Jesus, but also the true
nature of my own fallen condition. It’s hard not to see your own
imperfection when you are confronted with the perfect God of the universe.
As I came to appreciate my own need for forgiveness and what Jesus did to
accomplish this for me, I became truly grateful and optimistic for the first
time in my life. I had been a cop for about eight years prior to being a
Christian. In that time, I slowly lost my faith in people. I was suspicious; I
considered everyone to be a liar and capable of horrific behavior. Nothing
surprised me when it came to the depravity of humanity. I trusted no one

and thought of myself as superior to the vast majority of people I

encountered. I was cocky, cynical, and distant. My wife and kids were my
entire world. I had a few acquaintances who were also police officers, but
few other friends. My heart was shrinking and growing harder with every
case I worked and with every passing year. None of this bothered me in the
slightest. In fact, I saw my suspicion as a virtue.

That all changed when I put my faith in Jesus. As I began to understand
my need and the gift I had been given, my compassion and patience grew.
As someone who had been forgiven, I now developed the capacity to
forgive. My excitement became contagious. It spilled over into everything I
said and did. My partners noticed it, even though I was careful in the early
days to hide my conversion from them. My wife was perhaps the most
surprised by all of this. She was raised in a Christian environment but
patiently accepted my resistance and growing cynicism for the first
seventeen years of our relationship. She was about to see my life (and hers)
change dramatically. Looking back at it sixteen years later, she is still
amazed at the transformation. The truth about Jesus impacted every aspect
of our lives as I became consumed by the desire to learn more about Him. I
Slept less, studied more, worked with more urgency, and loved others in a
way that I had never loved before. I wanted to share what I had discovered
with the people in my world. Everyone I came in contact with eventually
heard about the gospel. I became known as a vocal Christian. I entered
seminary, became a pastor, and even planted a small church. Over the past
sixteen years, as I have studied the eyewitness accounts, I have become
more and more confident in their reliability and message. This confidence

has motivated me to defend and share the truth.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BECOMING A TWO-
DECISION CHRISTIAN

In televised criminal cases, the jurors are sometimes interviewed following
their decision. Some make a second decision when approached by reporters.
They choose to make a case for why they voted the way they did. Not every
juror decides to defend his or her decision, but those who do find that they
are far more likely to persuade others and grow in their own personal
confidence related to their decision. Had Santiago Ortega made the decision
to investigate and defend what he believed, I can’t help but wonder if he
would also have been able to persuade those around him or at least grow in
his own personal confidence and ability to resist the influence of others.

When I decided to believe what the gospel writers were telling me, I also
decided to become a Christian case maker. The second decision was just as
important as the first. I began modestly; I started an inexpensive website
(PleaseConvinceMe.com) and posted my own investigations in a variety of
areas. When I was a youth pastor, I also posted the lessons and messages I
presented to my students. Eventually, I started a podcast. Now I’ve written a
book. At first, like many Christians, I was uncomfortable defending the
claims of Christianity. How would I ever learn enough (or know enough) to
be an effective case maker? Don’t I need a doctorate in philosophy or
Christian apologetics? Shouldn’t I be an “expert” of some sort before trying
to defend what I believe?

Jurors aren’t experts, yet they are required to make the most important
decision in the courtroom. In fact, the experts introduced by the prosecution
or the defense never cast a single vote. Our justice system trusts that folks
like you and me can examine the testimony of experts and come to a
reasonable conclusion about the truth. One of the jurors will even become a
leader in the jury room. As the “foreperson,” chosen by the other jurors, this

man or woman will shepherd the deliberations and eventually present the

decision to the judge. You don’t have to be an expert to serve on a jury or
lead the jury as a foreperson. Jurors need to be able to listen to the experts,
carefully evaluate the evidence, and draw the most reasonable inference.
Jurors don’t need to be experts in the field under consideration; they simply
need to be attentive, conscientious, and willing to get in the game.

And that’s all we need to be effective Christian case makers: attentive,
conscientious, and willing to get in the game. As it turns out, each of us is
already an expert of one kind or another. We’ve got life experiences we can
draw upon for the expertise we’ll need to answer the challenges of skeptics,
and we can make the conscious decision to become better Christian case
makers. It’s time well spent and an important part of our identity as

Christians.

THE DANGER OF BECOMING AN
ABBREVIATED CHRISTIAN
Many of us have neglected our duty in this area. In fact, we’ve been unable
to see our duty in the first place. We’ve become abbreviated Christians. Let
me explain. Most of us understand the importance of evangelism in the life
of Christians. Jesus told the apostles to “make disciples of all the nations”
and to instruct these disciples to obey everything that He taught (Matt.
28:16—20). We’ve come to call this the “Great Commission.” We are clearly
commanded to make disciples, just as the apostles did in their own
generation. As a result, Christians typically feel that they have been called
to evangelism of some sort, even though many of us feel ill equipped to
share our faith.

Paul seemed to recognize this and discussed evangelism as a matter of
gifting. When describing all of us as members of the church, Paul said that

God gave “some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists,

and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the
work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11—12).
Not everyone is a pastor or a prophet. Some of us are gifted in this area and
some are not. In a similar way, only some of us are gifted as evangelists; not
everyone has the ability to share his or her faith like Billy Graham. I’ve
often been comforted by these words from Paul when struggling to begin a
conversation about Christianity.

But the New Testament authors, while recognizing that not all of us are
gifted to be evangelists, described a responsibility that does apply to each
and every one of us as Christians. Peter said that no one is allowed to
relegate his or her duty as a Christian case maker. According to Peter, all of
us need to “be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks [us] to give
the reason for the hope that [we] have” (1 Pet. 3:15 Nrv). While only some
of us are gifted and called to be evangelists, all of us are called to be case
makers. It’s our duty as Christians. We need to stop thinking of ourselves in
an abbreviated manner. As biblical, New Testament believers, we aren’t just
“Christians”; we are “case-making Christians.” We can’t allow ourselves to
get comfortable and relegate the hard work of defending the faith to those
who write books on the topic.

Some of us prepare meals for a living. The world is filled with popular
and proficient chefs who make a living preparing meals for restaurants or
television programs. We recognize these chefs, and we can learn something
from their recipes and experiences. But even if you aren’t a professional
chef, I bet you know how to prepare a meal. Meal preparation is an
important part of living. Yes, some of us are professional chefs; but the rest
of us need to be able to cook if we want to survive. In a similar way, some

of us make a living preparing a defense for Christianity. The rest of us can

learn a lot from the arguments and presentations of professional “Christian
apologists.” But that doesn’t get us off the hook. All of us, as Christians,
need to be able to prepare a defense for what we believe. It’s just as
important as preparing our daily meals. Our meals may not be as creative or
flamboyant as those prepared by professional chefs, but they are typically
sufficient and satisfying. Our personal defense of Christianity may not be as
robust as what can be offered by a professional apologist, but it can be just
as powerful and persuasive.

Each of us has to answer God’s call on our lives as two-decision
Christians. If you’ve already decided to believe the Gospels, take a second
step and decide to defend them. Become a case-making Christian; work in
your profession, live your life faithfully, devote yourself to the truth, and
steadily prepare yourself to make a defense for what you believe. I want to
encourage you to make that second decision. Start small. Read and study.
Engage your friends. Start a blog or host a website. Volunteer to teach a
class at your church. Get in the game.

My life as a Christian took flight the minute I decided to become a case
maker. God cleverly used all my experiences as a detective to give me a
perspective that I’ve tried to share with you in the pages of this book. It’s
my hope that the skeptics who read this might at least lay down their
presuppositions long enough to recognize that there is a substantive
circumstantial case supporting the reliability of the gospel writers. It’s also
my hope that Christians who read this book will be encouraged to know that
God can use you right now, in this very moment, to make a case for the
truth.

Appendix
WITNESSES AND RESOURCES

Compiling the resources necessary to make the case

Case Files (_.
EXPERT WITNESSES

I’ve yet to bring an investigation to trial without the assistance of expert
witnesses who testified about specific and detailed aspects of the evidence.
The following expert witnesses may be called to the stand as you make a

case for the claims of Christianity.

Chapter 1:

DON’T BE A “KNOW-IT-ALL”

J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig
Will testify to the philosophical biases and presuppositions that
impact issues of faith and reason in their book, Philosophical

Foundations for a Christian Worldview (InterVarsity Press, 2003).

Chapter 2:

LEARN HOW TO “INFER”

Gary Habermas and Michael Licona

Will testify to the minimal facts and evidences related to the
resurrection in their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
(Kregel, 2004).

Chapter 3:

THINK *“CIRCUMSTANTIALLY”

William Lane Craig

Will testify to the causal evidence related to the cosmological
argument in his book The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Wipf &
Stock, 2000).

John Leslie
Will testify to the fine-tuning evidence related to the anthropic

principle in his book Universes (Taylor & Francis, 2002).

Neil Manson

Will testify to the design evidence related to the teleological
argument in his book God and Design: The Teleological Argument
and Modern Science (Routledge, 2003).

Paul Copan and Mark Linville
Will testify to the moral evidence related to the axiological argument
in their book The Moral Argument (Continuum Publishers, 2013).

Chapter 4:

TEST YOUR WITNESSES

Richard Bauckham

Will testify to the nature of the New Testament Gospels as
eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus in his book Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans,
2006).

Bruce Metzger
Will testify to the early collection of the eyewitness accounts and

their formation into the New Testament in his book The Canon of the

New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford

University Press, 1997).

Chapter 5:

HANG ON EVERY WORD

Craig Blomberg

Will testify to the “forensic” methods of “textual criticism” that can
be employed to study the Gospels and discuss some of the
conclusions that can be drawn from this effort in his book The
Historical Reliability of the Gospels (InterVarsity Press, 2007).

Daniel B. Wallace

Will testify to what can be learned “forensically” about the early
transmission of the New Testament documents in the compilation
Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript,

Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Kregel, 2011).

Chapter 6:

SEPARATE ARTIFACTS FROM EVIDENCE

Michelle Brown

Will testify to the early formation of the biblical text, while
exhibiting a number of ancient biblical manuscripts in her book In
the Beginning: Bibles before the Year 1000 (Smithsonian, 2006).

Philip Comfort
Will testify to the nature of the early New Testament papyrus

manuscripts and the methodology used to re-create the original

accounts in his book Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of
the New Testament (Wipf & Stock, 2001).

Chapter 7:

RESIST CONSPIRACY THEORIES

William McBirnie

Will testify to the nature of the lives and deaths of the apostles who
claimed to see the resurrection of Jesus in his book The Search for
the Twelve Apostles (Tyndale, 2008).

Chapter 8:

RESPECT THE “CHAIN OF CUSTODY”

Mark D. Roberts

Will testify to the historical manuscript evidence and early
appearance of the biblical record in his book Can We Trust the
Gospels? Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John (Crossway, 2007).

Mike Aquilina

Will testify to the writings and teachings of the early church fathers
in his book The Fathers of the Church, Expanded Edition (Our
Sunday Visitor, November 2006).

Chapter 9:

KNOW WHEN “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”

David Wolfe
Will testify to how we come to “know” something is true in his book,

Epistemology: The Justification of Belief (InterVarsity Press, 1983).

William Rowe

Will testify to the classic atheist presentations of the “problem of
evil” and the classic defenses (theodicies) that have been offered by
theists in his book God and the Problem of Evil (Wiley-Blackwell,
2001).

Chapter 10:

PREPARE FOR AN ATTACK

Craig Evans

Will testify to the assumptions and dubious sources that account for
some of the theories and tactics that have been employed by skeptics
in Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
(InterVarsity Press, 2006).

Gregory Koukl

Will testify to successful and reasoned approaches that can be
employed by those who seek to defend the Christian worldview in
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
(Zondervan, 2009).

Chapter 11:

WERE THEY PRESENT?

Jean Carmignac

Will testify to the Semitic origin of the synoptic gospels and how
they were formed amid the Jewish culture of the first half of the first
century in his book, Birth of the Synoptic Gospels (Franciscan Herald
Press, October 1987).

John Wenham

Will testify to an alternate theory about the early dating of the
Gospels (that places Matthew ahead of Mark) by comparing the
Gospels to one another and to the writings and records of the church
fathers in his book Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh
Assault on the Synoptic Problem (InterVarsity Press, March 1992).

Chapter 12:

WERE THEY CORROBORATED?

Peter Schafer
Will testify to the ancient Jewish references to Jesus that are
scattered throughout the Talmud in his book Jesus in the Talmud

(Princeton University Press, 2009).

R. T. France

Will testify to the nonbiblical ancient sources that corroborate the
existence of Jesus in his book The Evidence for Jesus (Regent
College, 2006).

John McRay
Will testify to the archaeological corroboration of the New Testament
in his book Archaeology and the New Testament (Baker, 2008).

Shimon Gibson

Will testify (as an archaeologist) to the archaeological evidence that
corroborates the final days of Jesus’s life in his book The Final Days
of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (HarperCollins, 2009).

Chapter 13:

WERE THEY ACCURATE?

Michael Holmes

Will testify to the writings of the students of the apostles in his book
The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Baker,
2007).

Justo Gonzalez

Will testify to the early history of Christianity and many of the
characters who played a part in the “chain of custody” in his book
Story of Christianity: Volume 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the
Reformation (HarperOne, 2010).

Nicholas Perrin

Will testify to the transmission (and copying) of the gospel accounts
in his book Lost in Transmission? What We Can Know About the
Words of Jesus (Thomas Nelson, 2007).

Chapter 14:

WERE THEY BIASED?

C. Bernard Ruffin

Will testify to the lives and martyrdoms of the apostles in his book
The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles after Calvary (Our Sunday
Visitor, 1998).

Josh and Sean McDowell

Will testify to the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn about the
testimony of the apostles in their book Evidence for the Resurrection
(Regal, 2009).

Case Files E-
ASSISTING OFFICERS

I’m not the first police officer or detective to investigate the evidence
related to the gospel eyewitnesses and conclude that that they are reliable.
Many detectives have used their expertise in evidence to come to the same
conclusion. The following detectives are among the many who have
assisted the cause of Christianity over the years by contributing their

expertise.

Sir Robert Anderson

Assistant Commissioner (Deceased), London Metropolitan
Police

Sir Robert Anderson was a theologian and author of numerous
books, including The Coming Prince, The Bible and Modern

Criticism, and A Doubter’s Doubts about Science and Religion.

Gregory Allen Doyle

Police Sergeant (Retired), Upland Police Department
(California)

Gregory Doyle is a writer, worship leader, and the author of The
Sting of the Gadfly, God Is Not an Option, and The Stinging Salve: A
Hearty Concoction of Essays, Short Stories, Songs, Poems, and
Thoughts Mostly about God, Faith, and Eternal Life.

Michael Dye

Deputy Sheriff, Volusa County Sheriff's Office (Florida), and
Marshal with the United States Marshals Service in Los
Angeles

Michael Dye is a speaker and the author of The PeaceKeepers: A
Bible Study for Law Enforcement Officers
(www.christianlawenforcement.com). Michael also serves on the
Board of Directors for the Fellowship of Christian Peace Officers
(www.fcpo.org), a ministry that provides support and accountability
to Christian officers to help them become more effective witnesses
for Christ as they disciple and train others to carry out the Great

Commission.

Conrad Jensen

Deputy Inspector (Deceased), New York City Police
Department

Conrad Jensen was a speaker and author. He served as a captain in
the twenty-third precinct and founded an evangelical organization
working with the youth gangs in east Harlem. After his retirement in
1964, the American Tract Society asked him to write a book, 26
Years on the Losing Side, in an effort to “stimulate concerted prayer
that our nation under God might return to the Scriptural foundations

upon which it was built.”

Mark Kroeker

Deputy Chief (Retired), Los Angeles Police Department, Chief
of Police (Retired), Portland Police Department), United
Nations Deputy Police Commissioner (Operations) in Bosnia
and Herzegovina (Reassigned), Civilian Police Commissioner

for the United Nations’ Peacekeeping Mission in Liberia
(Reassigned)

Mark Kroeker is a speaker and writer. He founded and continues to
serve as the chairman of the World Children’s Transplant Fund
(wctf.org), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the development of

pediatric organ transplantation around the world.

Tony Miano

Investigator and Officer (Retired), Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department

Tony Miano is a sheriff’s chaplain and was the founder and director
of Ten-Four Ministries (tenfourministries.org), providing practical
and spiritual support to the law enforcement community. He is
presently the director of the Ambassador’s Alliance, an outreach of
Living Waters Ministry (www.livingwaters.com). He authored Take
Up the Shield: Comparing the Uniform of the Police Officer and the
Armor of God.

John Moreno

Police Lieutenant (Retired), New York City Police Department
John Moreno is a lay minister, speaker, author, and founder of
Catholic Lay Preachers (www.catholiclaypreachers.com), a small
group of experienced lay speakers offering their talents to religious

organizations. He is the author of A Spirituality for Police Officers.

Randy Myers
Police Officer, Oak Ridge Police Department (Tennessee)
Randy Myers is a speaker and founder of International COPS

Ministries (www.copsministry.org), a ministry dedicated to praying

for the safety and well-being of all law enforcement officers.

Sir Robin Oake

Chief Constable (Retired), Isle of Man, Chief Inspector to the
Metropolitan Police and Superintendent to the Assistant Chief
Constable in the Greater Manchester Police (England)

Robin Oake, a recipient of the Queen’s Police Medal, is a speaker
and author of Father Forgive: The Forgotten “F” Word and With
God on the Streets.

Randal (Randy) Simmons

SWAT Officer (Killed in the line of duty), Los Angeles Police
Department

Randal Simmons was a minister for Carson’s Glory Christian
Fellowship International Church (California). His legacy of service
to troubled youth in his community inspired the formation of the
Randal D. Simmons Outreach Foundation
(www.randysimmonsswat.com/foundation), a nonprofit organization
designed to serve, empower, and encourage families and individuals

in underserved areas.

Robert L. Vernon

Assistant Chief of Police (Retired), Los Angeles Police
Department

Bob Vernon is a speaker, writer, founder of Pointman Leadership
Institute (www.pliglobal.com), offering leadership training to police
forces globally, and author of L.A. Justice: Lessons from the

Firestorm and Character: The Foundation of Leadership.

Larry Warner

Deputy Sheriff (Retired), Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department

Larry Warner is a speaker, author, pastor, and executive director of
“b” ministry (www.b-ing.org), formed to provide spiritual direction,
contemplative retreats, and holistic leadership development for
pastors, ministry leaders, and church staffs. He is also an adjunct
professor at Bethel Seminary in San Diego, the coauthor of
Imaginative Prayer for Youth Ministry: A Guide to Transforming
Your Students’ Spiritual Lives into Journey, Adventure, and

Encounter, and the author of Journey with Jesus.

Dave Williams

Assistant Chief of Police (Retired), Portland

Dave Williams is a speaker and the founder and chairman of
Responder Life (www.responderlife.com), formed to support and

strengthen the families of all first responders.

Michael “MC” Williams

Detective Sergeant, Colorado State Criminal Investigator
Michael Williams is an instructor, speaker, and national vice
president of the Fellowship of Christian Peace Officers
(www.fcpo.org). He is also the director of the Centurion Law
Enforcement Ministry
(www.thecenturionlawenforcementministry.org), a ministry created
to bring officers to a saving knowledge of Christ and to equip

Christian officers to grow in their faith.

Travis Yates

Police Captain, Tulsa Police Department (Oklahoma) and
Team Leader with the Tulsa Police Precision Driver Training
Unit

Travis Yates is a teacher, speaker, and director of Ten-Four Ministries
(tenfourministries.org), and he oversees the Armor of God Project
(www.vestforlife.com), a ministry that provides unequipped law
enforcement officers with free ballistic vests. Travis also moderates
www.policedriving.com, a website dedicated to law enforcement

driving issues.

COLD-CASE CHRISTIANITY
Published by David C Cook
4050 Lee Vance View
Colorado Springs, CO 80918 U.S.A.

David C Cook Distribution Canada
55 Woodslee Avenue, Paris, Ontario, Canada N3L 3E5

David C Cook U.K., Kingsway Communications
Eastbourne, East Sussex BN23 6NT, England

The graphic circle C logo is a registered trademark of David C Cook.

All rights reserved. No part of this ebook may be reproduced, scanned, resold, or distributed by or
through any print or electronic medium without written permission from the publisher. This ebook is
licensed solely for the personal and noncommercial use of the original authorized purchaser, subject
to the terms of use under which it was purchased. Please do not participate in or encourage piracy of

copyrighted materials in violation of the author’s rights.
no part of this book may be reproduced or used in any form
without written permission from the publisher.

The website addresses recommended throughout this book are offered as a resource to you. These
websites are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement on the part of David C Cook, nor
do we vouch for their content.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible®,
Copyright © 1960, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org.)
Scripture quotations marked NIv are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®.
Copyright © 1973, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved
worldwide. www.zondervan.com. Scripture quotations marked KJV are taken from the King James
Version of the Bible. (Public Domain.)

The author has added italics to Scripture quotations for emphasis.

LCCN 2012951458
ISBN 978-1-4347-0469-6
eISBN 978-1-4347-0546-4

© 2013 J. Warner Wallace
Published in association with the literary agency of Mark Sweeney and Associates, 28540 Altessa
Way, Apt. 201, Bonita Springs, FL 34135.

The Team: Don Pape, John Blase, Amy Konyndyk, Renada Arens, Karen Athen
Cover Design: Nick Lee
Cover Photos: Shutterstock, stock.xchng
Illustrations: J. Warner Wallace

First Edition 2013

J. WARNER WALLACE is a cold-case homicide detective, a missions
leader, and a church planter. As a result of his work with cold cases,
Wallace has been featured on numerous television programs including
Dateline, FOX News, and Court TV. Wallace’s visual presentations in the
courtroom have revolutionized how capital offense trials are presented in
Los Angeles County and across the country. A vocal atheist for many years,
Wallace is now an apologist for Christianity with a master’s degree in
theology and the founder of the PleaseConvinceMe.com blog and podcast.

He and his wife, Susie, have four children and live in southern California.
COLDCASECHRISTIANITY.COM
If you enjoyed this title, visit DCCeBooks.com for more great reads.

David(@Cook

transforming lives together

www.davidccook.com

What people are saying about ...

COLD-CASE CHRISTIANITY

“My friend J. Warner Wallace is one of the most thoughtful and winsome

apologists for the gospel I know. Cold-Case Christianity is literally packed

with insights to share with the skeptics in your life, and this book will give
you the confidence to share it!”

Dr. Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life and pastor

of Saddleback Church

“Cold-Case Christianity is a fantastic book. I wish I had this resource when

I first examined the Christian faith. It would have answered many of my
questions and helped set me on the track to truth.”

Josh McDowell, speaker and author of Evidence That Demands a

Verdict

“What happens when an atheist cop takes the same forensic skills he uses to
solve the toughest crimes—homicides with a trail that’s been cold for
decades—and applies them to the eyewitness testimony and circumstantial
evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth? A fascinating new approach to
the question of gospel credibility, that’s what. Cold-Case Christianity is
simply the most clever and compelling defense I’ve ever read for the
reliability of the New Testament record. Case closed.”

Gregory Koukl, president of Stand to Reason and author of

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions

“Cold-Case Christianity offers a fresh approach to biblical fact-finding that

actually makes apologetics fun! I highly recommend it to anyone interested

in the evidence that backs up the Christian faith, whether you’re a skeptic, a

spiritual seeker, or a committed believer. Everyone will benefit from
reading J. Warner Wallace’s powerful new book.”

Mark Mittelberg, author of The Questions Christians Hope No

One Will Ask (with answers) and coauthor of Becoming a

Contagious Christian

“The moment I heard of J. Warner Wallace’s idea for a book, I thought it
was one of the freshest ideas I’d heard in a long time. And now seeing the
book in hand, he totally delivers. This is one of the most fun and clever
ways to learn just how strong and enduring the case for Christianity is. I’ve
always maintained that if we apply standard tools of investigation in an
unbiased way that Christian truth claims would be vindicated. Jim’s ‘cold-
case’ detective work shows this idea to be right on the money.”
Craig J. Hazen, PhD, founder and director of the Christian
Apologetics Program, Biola University, and author of Five Sacred

Crossings

“Today Americans are searching for truth. The most fundamental truth is

the reality of a sovereign God. During his journey from agnosticism to

apologetics, J. Warner Wallace uses his ‘cold-case’ investigative techniques
to prove the reality of the divine. READ his book. You will not regret it.”

William G. Boykin, LTG(R) US Army, executive vice president

of Family Research Council, former deputy undersecretary of

Defense for Intelligence, and founding member of US Army Delta

Force

“Cold-Case Christianity reads like the fast-paced detective drama it actually

is. The book is chock full of interesting evidence and arguments, and it is

unique among the literature in exhibiting a legal-reasoning approach to the

evidence for and against historic Christianity. I enthusiastically endorse this
great book and thank J. Warner Wallace for his excellent work.”

J.P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola

University, and author of The God Question

“Cold-Case Christianity is one of the most insightful, interesting, and
helpful books in defending the faith I have read in a long time. Whether you
are a Christian or a skeptic, J. Warner Wallace will challenge you to
consider the evidence through fresh eyes. I have been studying the evidence
for the faith for many years, and yet Jim helped me look at the historical,
scientific, and philosophical facts in a new way. I could not recommend it
more highly.”

Sean McDowell, educator, speaker, and author of Is God Just a

Human Invention?

“J. Warner Wallace’s Cold-Case Christianity offers a fascinating angle on
the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. While Wallace does have
experience as a former atheist—a bonus feature—he brings his expertise as
a cold-case detective to bear on the forensic aspects of the events
surrounding the first Easter. This book is a unique contribution to the
growing literature on Jesus’s resurrection.”
Paul Copan, professor and Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy
and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University

“As a longtime prosecutor, I have come to appreciate the persuasive power
of a circumstantial case. J. Warner Wallace has made a career investigating
‘cold-case’ homicides. He now brings that dogged pursuit of truth and hard-

nosed judgment to the world of ancient documents, witness statements, and

changed lives. From forensic statement analysis to assessment of motives to
an in-depth analysis of what makes conspiracies tick, Jim presents the
material in a way that is both readily accessible but also sufficiently in-
depth to carry the ‘burden of proof.’”

Al Serrato, assistant district attorney, State of California

“Detective J. Warner Wallace is as creative telling a story as he is solving a
crime. This is his ultimate case, where he investigates his own personal
transformation by applying many lessons he learned on the job.”

Robert Dean, producer of Dateline NBC

“J. Warner Wallace, my colleague in the fraternity of law enforcement, has
made a valuable contribution to this generation and those to come. His book
has the potential of becoming a classic for those seeking truth. Jim does a
superb job of using the discipline and logic of a police detective as a matrix
through which to examine the evidence for God, Jesus, the reliability of
Scripture, and the message of the gospel. Skeptics, seekers, and committed
believers will all find his analysis interesting and compelling. Armchair
detectives and scholars alike will treasure this work. This book will be an
important resource in my personal library.”

Robert L. Vernon, assistant chief of police (ret.) LAPD, and

founder of Pointman Leadership Institute

“WARNING: Do not start reading this book unless you have time set aside.
You will NOT be able to put it down. This is a_ one-of-a-kind,
groundbreaking book that everyone should read. J. Warner is in a unique
position to investigate the claims of Christianity. He is quickly becoming

my favorite apologist. Twelve stars out of a possible ten!”

Don Stewart, host of Pastor’s Perspective and author of over

seventy books

“Cold-Case Christianity reads like an exciting detective novel and a
textbook at the same time. Using his seasoned detective skills, J. Warner
Wallace builds an incredible case that Christianity must be true. I’d love to
bring him to every college campus in America to present his case and let

the students be the jury.”
Rick Schenker, president of Ratio Christi, the University Student
Apologetics Alliance

“With his background as a detective, J. Warner Wallace is qualified to sift
through evidence and reach well-reasoned conclusions. Warner’s Cold-Case
Christianity is therefore unique among apologetics resources available
today: The historical facts and related evidence are examined via the same
protocols that a professional investigator would follow in handling a case.
Wherever one falls on the faith spectrum—Christian, skeptic, or somewhere
in-between—Warner’s application of investigative principles in his
examination of Christianity makes for a must-read contribution to the realm
of apologetics.”
Alex McFarland, author of the best-selling 10 Most Common
Objections to Christianity, and apologetics director, North

Greenville University

“T am fortunate to be both J. Warner Wallace’s friend and former chief and
thoroughly enjoyed reading Cold-Case Christianity. Jim is a seasoned and
incredibly skillful investigator who has a real talent for uncovering the
important pieces of evidence and logically linking them together to arrive at

the truth. This book is a compelling investigative work paralleling the steps

Jim takes while investigating a crime with the steps he has taken to reveal
the truth about Christ. Cold-Case Christianity is a bright light that
illuminates the truth in a persuasive and convicting style.”

Jim Herren, chief of police, UCLA Police Department

“T have had the pleasure of working with J. Warner Wallace for the past
twenty-five years, and it is what I have learned from him that I cherish the
most. His brilliant work, Cold-Case Christianity, provides readers with an
opportunity to learn from Jim’s experiences as a cold-case detective and
discover his true passion—a passion that is equally matched by his
character, knowledge, and wisdom. Cold-Case Christianity has opened a
new resource for all to see and displays the endless contributions Jim has
made to Christianity.”

John J. Neu, chief of police, Torrance Police Department

“The work of an investigator requires an eye for observation and a mind to
recognize its relevance. God has blessed Jim Wallace with such gifts. Those
gifts have been sharpened by years of use and proved in such works as this.
In the tradition of the great Sir Robert Anderson of Scotland Yard, Wallace
digs for the facts and presents them reasonably.”

Ken Graves, speaker and pastor of Calvary Chapel, Bangor,

Maine